Download:
pdf |
pdfXXXX Center
Center Performance and
Profile Report (CPPR)
DRAFT CPPR
Panel Review Date
June 5, 2018
Page 1 of 40
Table of Contents
I.
Performance Measurement and Management
II.
Center Strengths and Challenges
III.
Organizational Structure and Management
IV.
Market Understanding
V.
Business Model
VI.
Financial Viability
VII.
National Network Citizen
DRAFT CPPR
Page 2 of 40
I. Performance Measurement and Management
a. Center IMPACT (Improving Manufacturing Productivity and Competitiveness
Tracker) and Trends
Presents the most recent IMPACT Metrics trends for the Center (a four-quarter rolling average) as well as
a comparison of the impacts measure of the Center relative to the system͛s median, over time. This is to
let the Panel and Center understand which elements are a strength or challenge, and to foster discussions
about trends for each of the impact measures. The last two measures, Clients and New Clients per $M Fed
are proxies for efficiencies. The Panel will have seen, in Section VI, other sources of cost sharing. This will
help add context to these measures. It is understood that there is substantial heterogeneity across
centers in terms of State support, embedded projects, etc.
The Center - ID XXX
2017-4 - IMPACT Metrics as of Monday, April 23, 2018
CAR Operations Performance Management IMPACT Metrics
CAR Current Quarter Performance
Federal Funding - $5,029,910.00 Total Cash Resources - $10,131,607.00
(Four Quarter Rolling Average)
DRAFT CPPR
Impact Metrics
Metric
CAR Reported Impact
Normalized CAR Performance
Performance Standard
Impact data based on MEP Client Survey responses
New Sales (10)
$112.9 M
22.4
15
Retained Sales (10)
$639.5 M
127.1
35
5825
1158.1
500
$108.6 M
21.6
15
$39.0 M
7.8
7
Percent Improving Competitiveness (10)
309.0 / 372.0
83.1%
80%
Survey Response Rate (10)
372.0 / 457.0
81.4%
70%
Net Promoter Score(r) (10)
84.6 - 3.5
81.0
75
Jobs Created and Retained (10)
New Investment (10)
Cost Savings (10)
Impact data based on Client/Project Submissions
Mfg.Clients / $M Fed (10)
416
83.0
73
New Mfg.Clients / $M Fed (10)
179
36.0
29
Page 3 of 40
DRAFT CPPR
Page 4 of 40
DRAFT CPPR
Page 5 of 40
b. CAR and MEP Metrics Map
DRAFT CPPR
Page 6 of 40
DRAFT CPPR
Notes:
Data points: labeled by CAR ID
Center: = (X: 61, Y: 492)
NatNet: Federal funding allocated to the Center Operations Funding Program
$3M,$5M, $10M, $20M, $50M and $100M: lines represent crude return on investment estimates
Page 7 of 40
c. Based on your performance to date:
i Performance Management System
Please describe the Center's Performance Management System and how it is integrated with the
Center's Strategy.
Center͛s performance management system starts with the strategic plan. The strategic plan's
performance measures focus on financial, impact, penetration, employee engagement, and
internal improvement results. Center cascades and tracks performance results and uses
dashboards as follows:
ͻBoard level: strategic plan and key financial indicator dashboards (lagging indicators).
ͻLeadership team: Statewide dashboard and regional comparison dashboard (leading and lagging
indicators).
ͻRegional team: pipeline performance dashboard. Same measures as leadership team.
ͻIndividual objectives: 70% individual performance, 30% regional performance
ii. Importance of National Network
To what extent is the National Network an important benchmark for your Center as it relates to
improving performance?
DRAFT CPPR
Center uses comparative data to gain a better understanding of our processes and performance.
Benchmarking with the National Network provides peer insights for these efforts and occurs in the
following ways:
1. Leadership review of quarterly data comparisons
2. Ad hoc outreach to centers to learn about their best practices and lessons learned. Examples
include a coordinated monthly call with a subset of centers on various financial topics and a project
to review event activities of centers with outreach to a subset in order to improve Center
approaches and share lessons learned.
3. National resources as they are made available (i.e. cybersecurity, institutes)
a. Lead multi-state projects: DMDII embed and Supply Chain Optimization (SCO)
4. FIN(Future Is Now) group; Foundation for Excellence/ ASMC.
Importantly, we benchmark other external sources as well. For example, our employee engagement
data is with an international dataset of firms. We currently are performing in the top quartile. Our
board, with their breadth of experience, provides ongoing benchmark insights and connections
during board working sessions.
Finally, Center is following the Baldrige process which provides tremendous guidance for ongoing
and rigorous benchmarking.
iii Benchmark Comparisons
If your center benchmarks against a smaller cohort vs. the entire National Network, what are the
characteristics to which you compare? Geography, Center structure, industry mix or something
outside of these categories?
Page 8 of 40
Center benchmarks are determined by the topics being benchmarked. We conduct environmental
scans in two primary ways. First, we utilize survey data to explore the highest performing centers in
all relevant metrics. Second, we scan center websites and social media. Through these efforts we
seek best practices regardless of center type. With regard to operational topics, we often turn to
similar sized centers due to similar structures.
iv. How Center Uses Performance Data
How does your Center use performance data available to you (i.e. NIST MEP, State or other
resources) to improve your overall performance?
External performance data provides invaluable insights to address performance gaps and
understand best practices. The appropriate team (board, leadership, regional, individual) is able to
solicit internal and external data and insights. External inputs mostly influence strategic and
leadership level decision making.
v. Improvements For the Future
What areas do you see improving performance in the future, whether NIST benchmark related or
other area of strategy?
The leadership team utilizes the X-chart, from lean policy deployment, as its͛method to establish
priorities for improving performance. The X-chart cascades strategic plan objectives into annual
objectives. From there, the team establishes improvement priorities and targets. The FY 2018 Xchart highlights that the areas for improvement include an internal continuous improvement
system (Center ideas), services 2.0, assessment approaches, very small manufacturer outreach,
and the use of third party service providers.
DRAFT CPPR
vi. Performance Metrics Used
What performance metrics has the center been using to measure their strategic performance
over time and what will the future performance metrics look like beyond the NIST benchmarks?
The strategic plan, initiated in 2017, shows the metrics and all meet or exceed any NIST benchmark.
vii. Improvements Over Time
How does the Center intend to improve their performance over time based on what you know
today?
Page 9 of 40
Center uses a systematic approach to continuously evaluate and improve. The Center Way for
continuous improvement is comprised of four elements; strategic/ business level reviews, Center
service and process audits, an idea implementation process, and best practice sharing.
Strategic/business level review: To cascade and implement the strategic plan, the leadership team
conducts strategic and business level reviews by utilizing the tools and methodology of lean policy
deployment. As a result, strategic goals are converted into annual high level process objectives.
From these objectives and current performance are the gaps that serve as the ͞To / from͟targets
for improvement. The leadership team reviews high level performance weekly, often focused on
planning and exception reporting. These meetings set the priority for improvement focus.
Service/process audits: Staff conducts ongoing service and process audits to identify and implement
improvement opportunities and quality checks. Technical Specialist service champions focus on
service audits in their knowledge areas of expertise while administrative staff conducts internal
process audits. When client related projects face potential challenges, a Project Review Board
consisting of key staff elevate issues to ensure appropriate management and continuous
improvement. Reasons for using this board include poor satisfaction or impact scores, net promoter
detractors, over budget, being off scope, and/or falling behind schedule. The teams analyze root
cause, define immediate solutions, and implement system improvements to prevent recurring
problem.
Center ideas: This suggestion system captures ideas and prioritizes implementation. The strategic
plan calls to eventually achieve six implemented idea per person and this measure is cascaded into
individual objectives.
DRAFT CPPR
Best practice sharing: As one example, regions report out during each weekly staff huddle to share
challenges and best practices. An internal team is currently working to create more formal
approaches to best practice sharing.
Page 10 of 40
II. Center Strengths and Challenges
a. Center Strengths
Extensive resources available to Center from four highly regarded universities, subcontractors,
partners, and collaborators.
Highly experienced staff and volunteer talent who provide instant credibility.
Comprehensive service offering model to address enterprise excellence and create an ³honest
broker´or one-stop for manufacturers.
Customer Relationship Management (CRM) model with three fundamental components; 1)
Regional Managers across the state to provide local connections, 2) a marketing department for
coordination of brand, events, print, web, and social media, 3) the iMAPS system that is IMEC's
data backbone with extensive client record and reporting capability.
System of performance accountability to measure economic impact, based on voice of the
customer data collected by a third-party surveying process. Clients and stakeholders, such as
elected officials, continually seek measurable impacts for their investments. This level of
program evaluation measurement is not found in similar organizations.
b. Center Challenges
DRAFT CPPR
Maintaining robust systems that proactively respond to client needs in an environment of
increasing service commodity risk. This is due to the large quantities of similar service providers
and the ease of accessibility to knowledge and services through the Internet.
Hiring and retaining talent.
Complexity of the Center funding model.
Effectively managing organizational knowledge.
Nurturing more strategic relationships with clients.
Page 11 of 40
III. Organizational Structure and Management
a. Center Overview
Organization Type: Non-Profit
Eligible Annual Federal Funding: $5,029,910.00(Previous Award Amount: $4,608,686.00)
Center receives roughly $373 per SME compared to the national average of $365 per SME
Center Funding Streams: The table provided below is an overview of the NIST MEP Cooperative
Agreements the Center has managed over the previous two years and current year.
Funding Source
Award Name
Start Date to End Date
Total Federal
Funding
Center Operations*
MEP System
2016-01 to 2020-12
$25,149,550.00
Manufacturing USA Embedded
Staff
Embedding MEP in NNMI Institutes 2016-10 to 2018-09
Pilot Projects
$1,200,000.00
Total NonFederal Funding
$27,369,115.00
* Indicates Cost Share Is Required
DRAFT CPPR
b. Sub-Recipient Funding Allocation
Identified below are Center sub-recipients and the funding amount allocated for each.
Sub-Recipients in award 70NANB15XXXX between 2018-01 to 2018-12
Name
Total NIST Funds
XXX University
Cost Share
$1,017,819.00
$970,224.00
XXXXX University
$250,220.00
$245,259.00
XXXXXXXX University
$829,319.00
$484,003.00
$1,392,272.00
$1,261,598.00
University of XXXX
* Sub-Recipient is a Regional Office
c. Organizational Structure
Page 12 of 40
Please provide the Center's Organizational diagram including reporting relationships to host
organization, as appropriate. Please include the following information within the organizational
diagram:
1.
2.
3.
4.
If the Center reports to a host organization, please include the hosts overall reporting structure.
Employee Name, title and #Years in Position (for Senior Management Personnel only). Please
identify using an (*) the Senior Management Personnel within your Center.
Please identify the type of board your Center has in place and where they fit into the overall
organizational diagram.
Please include all Sub-Recipients in the organizational diagram.
Center Uploads Organizational Chart here
DRAFT CPPR
d. Key Partners/Collaborators
In the chart provided below, we have listed the Center's top five partners and collaborators including their
key services based on information provided in MEIS. These are partner/collaborators you have identified
as organizations who influence the Center's performance (excluding Sub-Recipients which are already
identified in your Sub-Recipient Allocation section).
Partner Name
Organization Type
Partner
(Formal
Contract)
Service
Delivery
Location
Dept of Commerce and
Economic Opportunity
Other state agency
Yes
No
Page 13 of 40
Partner Services
Helps market services
Makes referrals
Technology and Manufacturing
Association
Industry/Trade Association
Yes
Yes
Helps market services
Makes referrals
Provides Office Space
e. Other Information Not Captured Previously
Note: If there is specific information pertaining to the overall Center that was not captured in the
diagram above that you feel is pertinent for the panel, please use this text box provided to articulate
this information.
None
f. FTE Summary
The charts provided below identify the Center's FTE distribution and FTE per $M Fed over a
specific time-frame based on information provided by the Center in MEIS. (Note: FTEs are also
intended to include sub-recipient staff count where appropriate). If this information is
incorrect, please update in MEIS.
Note: The data provided in the stacked bar chart below is based on averages.
DRAFT CPPR
Page 14 of 40
g. Organizational Structure Details
Based on your Center's current organizational structure:
i. Support for the Future
DRAFT CPPR
How does your Center's current organizational structure support your operations and
performance for the future?
Center recently added an additional leadership role for increased field staff support.
Special Initiatives in the organization chart highlight the strategic priorities designed to grow and
expand center capabilities. The three current initiatives include the DMDII embed project, a $4
million U.S. Department of Labor project to credential individuals for manufacturing careers, and
the integration of the state Baldrige program.
ii. Team Working Model
How do the different units in the organizational structure work together to promote improved
performance?
The leadership team is comprised of the different units to ensure top-level coordination. The state
is broken into regional teams and each team has a performance dashboard. Individual objectives
are comprised of 70% individual performance and 30% regional performance. This approach,
combined with the functional structure of the organization chart, creates an effective matrix
organization. The performance management system that promotes improved performance is
described in section I.C.i
iii. Succession Management and Knowledge Transfer
Does your Center have a risk mitigation plan in place to effectively transfer organizational
knowledge and expertise in the event that your Center experiences turnover of key management
personnel to avoid potential adverse effects on Center performance? If so, please describe key
elements of your Center's plan.
Page 15 of 40
The center has conducted the following actions to mitigate succession risks:
1. Identified as part of Board͛s risk management plan.
a. Identified key roles
b. Established ͞emergency plans͟for these roles
c. Establishing longer term plans
2. Created a transition process for all positions
a. The process includes an employee exit operational checklist to ensure a smooth transition of
project work and client relationships. The checklist contains activities to be assigned and
coordinated from opportunities through proposal, project, and survey as well as partner
management.
3. The board and leadership have identified ͞retention of knowledge͟as a risk to mitigate.
a. Work to begin in second half of 2018
4. Developed an internal leadership development course based on the President position. 12 staff
members have completed this course, with 12 more anticipated by the end of 2018.
iv. Mix of Sub-recipients / Partners
How has the mix of Sub-recipients and/or partners been examined and what conclusions have
been reached about maintaining or changing this mix for future years?
Center conducted a significant reexamination of SRA͛s during the re-competition and reduced the
number of SRA͛s to the four universities. This is the appropriate level.
DRAFT CPPR
Partnerships are continuously evaluated based on mutual benefits. The core partners remain
stable including the large associations, state commerce, and City of XXXX.
v. Leverage Oversight Board
How does the Center leverage and/or engage the oversight board to improve the overall
performance of the Center?
The Board is a vital part of improving the overall performance of Center. The board conducts an
annual engagement assessment to determine strengths and opportunities for improvement. The
Board has created an annual workplan in conjunction with strong committee work.
Consequently, when the Board convenes they focus heavily on ͞working sessions͟to address key
strategic challenges. Some examples include:
ͻMarkets/Services: Currently, the board is involved in exploring a deeper understanding of
markets and clients. This shifts beyond typical measures of size and industry to to include needs,
wants, and desires of current and potential clients.
ͻAdvocacy: Created an ad hoc committee to develop and launch a systematic approach to
advocacy.
ͻBranding: Participating and served as voice of customer for new branding efforts.
ͻRisk management planning
vi. Changes to Improve Performance
Based on the achievements of the Center to date, what changes have been implemented or may
need to be implemented in the organizational structure to support improved performance?
Page 16 of 40
Noted in above sections.
DRAFT CPPR
Page 17 of 40
IV. Market Understanding
This section addresses achieving impacts and market penetration. The data and graphics in this section were
chosen to highlight the "types" of businesses working with the Center. These "types" will be compared to the
overall State distribution and examine the market penetration across "types".
There are many dimensions to categorizing businesses. To limit the scope and burden in preparing for the Panel,
"types" are limited to comparisons across employment (size) and NAICS Codes (industry).
If the Center feels other classifications are important, e.g. rural or start-up companies, these can be highlighted by
the Center in Section II, "Center Strengths and Challenges".
a. Center's Service Territory
Provided below is a map of the Center's service territory as follows:
i. Location of Headquarter, Sub-recipient and Field Offices as appropriate.
ii. Concentration of Rural vs. Urban manufacturers by county within the State.
iii. Number of Manufacturing Establishments by county in the Center's service territory.
DRAFT CPPR
State Map with Center's service territory appears here
Page 18 of 40
b. Center's Manufacturing Clients vs Manufacturing Population in Service Territory
Provided below is a map of the Center's Manufacturing Clients vs Manufacturing Population as follows:
i. Number of Center's Manufacturing Clients by zip code.
ii. Concentration of Rural vs Urban manufacturers by county in Center's service territory.
iii. Number of Manufacturing Establishments by county in the Center's service territory.
State map with Center's Manufacturing Clients vs. Manufacturing
population appears here
DRAFT CPPR
Page 19 of 40
c. Key Stakeholder Mandates/Requirements
Please identify any major mandates/requirements given by the host (if applicable), state or key
stakeholders that require the Center to target specific industries/size manufacturers.
Center has no particular key stakeholder mandates beyond MEP. The state does not have any particular
strategy related to manufacturing. Center has a MOU with The City of XXXX and works closely with the
City͛s Department of Development (DPD) to align outreach priorities and coordination of programs.
These efforts tend to be more tactical in nature. For example, Center supported DPD with a solar panel
outreach program and connected the department with manufacturers for interviews on planned
manufacturing districts.
DRAFT CPPR
Page 20 of 40
d. Operating Outcomes Engagement Goals
2016-2
2016-1
26
20
34
27
17
15
18
2018-2
2018-3
2018-4
Goal: 30
Page 21 of 40
Transformational
Clients
(NIST MEP Defined)
Goal: 220
Total unique
Other Manufacturers manufacturers
34
5
11
7
11
3
6
6
5
152
50
42
49
49
40
51
21
9
300
38
56
48
58
64
35
54
72
612
134
139
142
143
146
109
102
127
Goal: 500
Goal: 60
Identified below are the Center's current outcome goals and progress towards each of these goals, if relevant for the initial three-year operating
period. (Please note a Center does not have tot be active in every element of the categories identified below).
2016-3
33
22
Rural Establishments
(Use USDA
Start-up
Definition)
Establishments
2016-4
37
29
Very Small
Establishments
(< 20 employees)
2017-1
35
20
Goal: 100
2017-2
36
31
Goal: 150
2017-3
39
Goal Period
2017-4
114
2018-1
165
Total Unique
DRAFT CPPR
2017-1
2016-4
2016-3
2016-2
2016-1
22 %
39 %
25 %
37 %
33 %
53 %
48 %
78 %
61 %
75 %
63 %
67 %
47 %
Bottom Line
Growth
Goal: 55
2017-2
52 %
59 %
Top Line
Growth
Goal: 45
2017-3
41 %
Goal Period
2017-4
62 %
2018-4
2018-3
2018-2
2018-1
38 %
Total
Page 22 of 40
DRAFT CPPR
e. Center Operating Outcomes:
Center has tracking capabilities in each of these categories to ensure the organization stays on
or exceeds plan.
mHUB, a product development incubator, is a resource for start-up clients. The Center President
sits on the mHUB Board.
Rural counties have remained a focus of Center. Through the combination of targeted
messaging and events, Center has been able to provide resources to rural manufacturers and
communities that might otherwise not be available. Center has been active with the XXXX
Institute for Rural Affairs and an annual participant/presenter for their annual conference.
f. Client Mix
DRAFT CPPR
Page 23 of 40
Note: The NAICS codes identified above represent the following:
DRAFT CPPR
31-"Consumables" (Food, Apparel, etc)
32-"Resources, Chemicals and Non-Metals"
33-"Metals, Electronics and Transportation"
Other-"NAICS - 423510, 488991, 54171x, 541330, 541380, 561910, 811310"
g. Client Challenges / Needs
Page 24 of 40
Client Challenges/Needs: The data and graphics provided in the section below are designed to
highlight three areas:
Existing trends of Client needs and challenges
Center products and services meeting the needs
Measure of capacity and resource utilization
These data and graphics can also highlight how this information can assist the Center in strategies
moving forward to develop more clients and projects, and leverage associated impacts.
DRAFT CPPR
h. Market Assessment
The previous data examined your market across three dimensions ±size of company, industry
classification, and geography as well as client challenges. Please look at both the trend of your Center over
the past three years as well as comparing your Center¶s portfolio to the mix of all manufacturers in your
state.
i. Expected Changes
Do you anticipate any major changes in the types of clients the Center might serve in future years
based on this analysis, i.e. further industry targeting, different geographic focus, or new services
in response to client challenges or market opportunities for example?
One of the priorities for this fiscal year is to build a ͞very small manufacturer͟model targeting
manufacturers with less than 20 employees. We have conducted voice of the customer research
and are seeking to pilot new approaches in late 2018. This effort is expected to harness an on-line
learning platform and group learning projects.
Page 25 of 40
ii. Response to Client Challenges
How has your Center responded to the client challenges identified in the bar chart provided
above?
As we expect with many states, we͛ve watched the intensity around workforce challenges grow.
We͛ve implemented new employee engagement offerings as well as wrapped various services
around workforce solution sets. We͛ve launched a new leadership course targeting front-line and
partnered with training organizations.
One significant accomplishment has been receiving $4.0 million from U.S. Department of Labor for
pre-employment training activities focused in the south XXXX region. Center is the lead entity
helping to coordinate pre-employment training that leads to a credential and connects
manufacturers to the talent.
Center has worked closely with a partner, XXXX Metro Exports, to provide Exportech in XXXX. Given
that exports is not often identified, it has made strategic sense to work closely with an expert
partner and provide content resources and company outreach.
The reduced challenge in growth and related decline in cost reduction is likely tied to the very
strong manufacturing economy. Center continues to provide the operational excellence services
and growth services.
DRAFT CPPR
iii. Outreach Strategies
To what extent do outreach efforts or changes to strategy reflect focusing on these dimensions?
Noted above
iv. Greatest Opportunities of Dimension
Which dimension reflects the greatest opportunity to leverage serving more clients?
Based on the chart, continued work in cost reductions and growth remain the greatest opportunity
to serve more clients. Furthermore, we believe there is an opportunity to serve more clients
regarding the awareness of Industry 4.0. While it may not result in near term significant impacts or
revenue, it offers the potential to be a go-to resource as these topics become more relevant for
smaller manufacturers.
v.
Different Dimension - Greater Impacts?
Is this the same dimension for leveraging greater impacts? If not, how do you strike that balance?
See above
vi. Recent Market Analysis
When was the last market analysis completed by the Center? How will the Center regularly
update that information going forward, or are there plans for conducting a future market
analysis?
Page 26 of 40
The last in-depth market analysis focused on size, NAICS, and geography was conducted in 2017 as
part of the strategic planning process.
For ongoing market insights and analysis, Center uses Hubspot to glean insights into interests and
topics of priority.
In 2018, the Center Board is prioritizing a deeper understanding of the Most Valuable Customers
by impacts and revenues. This involves using 80/20 analysis to understand the top client users and
exploring more deeply about Why Center/MEP as well as understanding their motivators to use
outside services as well as needs and wants as business leaders.
V. Business Model
In this section, the data and graphics are designed to assess the existing and changing needs of clients and
services being requested. This section is designed to have the Center consider, and to highlight, how this
information can assist in strategies moving forward to develop more clients and projects, and leverage the
associated impacts.
In the bar chart provided below is the Center's distribution of services provided by the Center (in-house) vs. Third
Party Service Providers as presented in MEIS. If this information is inaccurate, please update the information in
MEIS. Note: This information is based on hours over the Center's current and two previous operating
years.
DRAFT CPPR
a. Service Delivery by Hours
In the bar chart provided below is the Center's distribution of services provided by the Center (inhouse) versus 3rd Party Service Providers as presented in MEIS,
Page 27 of 40
DRAFT CPPR
b. Service Delivery by Substance
Page 28 of 40
DRAFT CPPR
c. Service Delivery Top Line vs Bottom Line
Page 29 of 40
d. Based on Your Center's Business Model:
DRAFT CPPR
i. Process to Identify New Products or Services
What is the process the Center uses to identify new products or services?
The process to identify new products and services begins with listening to the Center Board,
clients, staff interactions in their communities, qualitative data from the quarterly survey, and
other MEP centers in addition to news and social media platforms. From this input, the leadership
team determines appropriate next steps. As one example, feedback from these various listening
approaches described the need to refresh current services, embrace new technologies, and create
the ability to customize offerings more effectively. This has resulted in the launch of Services 2.0 as
a means to refresh and upgrade all service offerings.
ii. Use of Staff / Contractors
How is the staffing or use of contractors deployed to implement new products or services?
Each new service is determined through its͛own merits. This implies a combination of staff interest
and expertise as well as the potential market demand to understand costs of staffing. As a result in
recent years, new services such as Promoting Business Excellence, succession planning, and QRM
have been internally delivered. Alternatively, cybersecurity, digital marketing, and competitive
intelligence have become mostly contracted services. Meanwhile, projects like significant plant
layouts and automation and ERP implementations are a blend of internal resources and external
resources.
iii. How Sub-recipient Relationships are Managed
How does the Center manage sub-recipient relationships so that the brand of the Center and MEP
Network is present and acknowledged?
Page 30 of 40
Center has sub-recipient relationships with four universities. These universities have non-voting
representation on the board and are well integrated into the overarching goals and efforts.
Each year Center conducts a sub-recipient risk review and mitigation plan, if appropriate, to
ensure compliance. The university staff uses the Center and MEP brand.
iv. If Able to Reinvent, How Would Center Move Forward?
If the Center were to start today, what form would the business model take going forward?
We would establish a model that could allow us to strongly emphasize the leading edge of
technologies and services. Match requirements and impact expectations encourage the use of
proven services with clear returns on investment that companies are willing to pay for (lean,
quality). This is particularly true with small manufacturers that require a short term and clear ROI.
Being on the cutting edge means the ROI is less clear and certain. Consequently, small and midsized companies are much less likely to pay for services and the impacts are unclear, modest, or
long term. We would design a blended funding model that could encourage a portion of staff time
devoted to cutting edge services and R&D behaviors combined with delivering the proven services
that provide discernible impacts.
If we could go back in time, we would have ensured Center served the whole state from the
beginning. The state lost significant scale having two centers for 15 years. And, it has been
extremely challenging to take over an effectively dormant region, introducing a new name and
refreshing the MEP brand, and achieving results.
DRAFT CPPR
v. Factors for Using Third Party Providers
What factors does the Center use to determine the use of 3rd party providers, does the Center
see the mix of 3rd party providers changing in future years, if so why and how?
Market demand, capabilities (expertise), and costs. It is likely the use of 3rd party providers will
continue to grow. This is due to the breadth of services we are expected to provide and increasing
staffing costs without steadily increasing funding.
vi. Client Engagement Model
Please describe the client engagement model the Center uses, how formal is this model in center
staff and 3rd party provider orientation and training?
Center uses a blended model, with approximately 40% of project delivery performed by 3rd party
providers in the past three years.
From a staff perspective, new hires follow a structured one year on-boarding program that includes
nearly 200 tasks performed as well as a staff mentor.
With respect to 3rd party providers, Center performs a subcontractor registration and vetting
process. This generally entails a pilot project. The staff is introduced to subcontractors through
weekly huddle presentations and coordinated marketing efforts (events). Finally, these providers
are reviewed through a rating report based on impacts, revenue, penetration and experience.
e. Capacity Utilization Indicators
Page 31 of 40
The following data and graphics provide different measure of capacity utilization over time and against the
National Network. The measures are in the areas of:
Usage of delivery employees
Portfolio mix of the ³intensity´of projects
Revenue generation
i. Clients and Projects by Delivery FTE
DRAFT CPPR
ii. Projects per Client and per $M Fed
Page 32 of 40
DRAFT CPPR
iii. Hours per Project and Project Intensity
Page 33 of 40
iv. Hours and Revenue per Delivery FTE
DRAFT CPPR
Page 34 of 40
v. Based on your Center͛s Capacity Utilization Indicators
DRAFT CPPR
vi. Changes Based on Capacity Utilization
What changes is the Center considering to enhance the Center's future capacity utilization to serve
more clients and have a greater impact?
The primary focus will be penetration of very small manufacturers (< 20 employee). With respect
to dollar impacts, Center uses its 80/20 analysis to continually deepen efforts with mid-sized
manufacturers in food and fabricated metal sectors. Center will continue to build its͛large project
capabilities (automation and ERP).
vii. Capacity Utilization indicators expected to change
Which, if any of these indicators would the Center expect to improve performance in the future,
and how might that be achieved?
As outlined in the strategic plan, revenue/ FTE is a strategic measure. This measure provides a focus
on the efficiency of revenues (projects) generated by the center as related to costs (headcount).
We are striving for a 46% improvement over five years. In order to achieve this goal, Center will
remain focused on operational efficiencies including "cost of sale", the appropriate use of thirdparties, growing project breadth with companies.
The regional and state dashboards have staff utilization metrics to monitor performance and to
focus improvements.
VI. Financial Viability
In this section, the focus is on the mix of the Center¶s Cost Share Portfolio. It identifies changes since the start of
the new cooperative agreement. The Center may choose to share strengths and/or challenges related to the
overall financial structure of the organization in Section II of the CPPR.
Page 35 of 40
a. Federal, State, Program Income and Other Funding
Provided below is a more detailed bar chart of your Center͛s Federal funding and Non-Federal cost
share for Years 1-5 categorized by Federal, State, Program Income and Other. The category identified
as Other includes Sub-recipients, Third Party In-Kind and Applicant cost share.
Please note that Years 1-2 and 3 are actuals. Years 4 and 5 show projected cost share.
DRAFT CPPR
Notes:
UFF - Unexpended Federal Funds
UPI - Unexpended Program Income
Page 36 of 40
b. Center Federal Funding - Requested vs Expended
Budget
Actual as of:
2017-12-31
Year 2
Budget
Actual as of:
N/A
Year 3
Budget
$5,029,910.00
$966,693.00
$5,029,910.00
$417,624.00
$1,940,866.00
$5,029,910.00
$2,500,000.00
$1,759,817.00
$5,029,910.00
$3,287,259.18
$1,851,697.00
$506,996.00
$500,000.00
$2,500,000.00
$1,817,817.48
$345,837.00
$10,704,282.00
$750,000.00
$1,851,697.00
$466,722.04
$10,895,068.00
$138,032.86
$345,837.00
$10,739,741.56
$750,000.00
$10,477,444.00
Page 37 of 40
Year 1
$2,960,010.78
$293,184.84
$5,029,910.00
Actual as of:
2016-12-31
The table provided below identifies the Center's requested annual Federal funding and Non-Federal funding vs. what the Center expended for
Years 1-2. Year 3 shows what has been expended as of the latest reported quarter by the center. Also identified in the table is the Center's
projected Federal funding and Non-Federal cost share for Years 4 and 5.
Eligible Federal Funding: $5,029,910.00
Revenue (Federal and Non-Federal Cost Share)
NIST MEP Funds
NIST MEP Supplemental Funds
Unexpended Federal Funds (From prior operating year) to be
used ABOVE base
Unexpended Federal Funds (From prior operating year) to be
used TOWARD base
Applicant Contribution Cash
State/Local Funds
State/Local Cash
State/Local In-Kind
Unexpended Program Income (From prior operating year)
Program Income
$1,806,133.65
Total Other
Total Other Cash
$577,081.36
$10,666,320.63
Total Other In-Kind
Total Revenue (Federal and Non-Federal Cost Share)
DRAFT CPPR
Revenue (Federal and Non-Federal Cost Share)
NIST MEP Funds
NIST MEP Supplemental Funds
Unexpended Federal Funds (From prior operating year) to be
used ABOVE base
Unexpended Federal Funds (From prior operating year) to be
used TOWARD base
Applicant Contribution Cash
State/Local Funds
State/Local Cash
State/Local In-Kind
Unexpended Program Income (From prior operating year)
Program Income
Budget
Year 4
Budget
Year 5
$5,029,910.00
$500,000.00
$644,462.00
$1,940,866.00
$1,759,817.00
Total Other
Total Other Cash
$506,996.00
$10,382,051.00
Total Other In-Kind
Total Revenue (Federal and Non-Federal Cost Share)
Page 38 of 40
$10,059,820.00
$506,996.00
$1,759,817.00
$1,940,866.00
$322,231.00
$500,000.00
$5,029,910.00
DRAFT CPPR
c. Additional Information Related to Financial Viability
If there is key financial information the Center feels would assist the Panel in completing their
evaluation, please use the area provided below to communicate this information.
None
i. Potential Challenges/Barriers to Meet Cost-Share Requirements
What would the Center identify as a potential challenge/barrier for meeting the program's cost
share requirement?
A significant economic downturn is one potential challenge to meeting the cost share
requirement, since Center͛s cash match is heavily dependent on client fees.
Center maintains six months of reserves to be able to withstand such challenges.
A challenge remains with the inconsistent financial participation of the state. Although it is not a
significant barrier to achieving the cost-share requirements, it limits the potential of the center.
ii. Effect of State Funding
Please describe any state funding the Center receives (direct or indirect) and how it affects the
centers programming, market penetration or impact achievement?
DRAFT CPPR
The center has not received consistent state funding for over ten years. Over the past four years,
the state has gone without a budget or has had a budget with relevant funding allocations not
released by the Governor͛s office.
The effect of the state funding situation is that we do not plan for it to occur while we continue
making advocacy a priority. Center is in the FY 19 state budget. If that comes to fruition, Center
will be highly thoughtful for how to most effectively deploy the funding particularly since the
possibility exists of no funding in subsequent years.
iii. Plans for Building Capacity
Does your Center anticipate building capacity for investing in new initiatives in the future? If so,
please provide a bulleted list not to exceed 3-5 initiatives.
ͻCenter has undertaken a priority this year called internally Services 2.0. This is a complete
review and update of current services, improvements to instructional design and the use of
technology to share services.
ͻIndustry 4.0 services (cybersecurity, technology integration, etc)
iv. Expectation of Steady Cost-Share
In reviewing the Center͛s cost share shown in Section b above, does the Center anticipate sources
of cost share to remain steady? If not, please describe your Centers contingency plan and the
possible impact that may have on the performance of the Center.
Described in prior sections
Page 39 of 40
VII. National Network Citizen
a. Contribution to National Network
How has your Center contributed to the performance of the National Network? This may include the
sharing of resources and capabilities, assistance for in-state and/or multi-state projects, intelligence
gathering, etc.
Center leadership has served as an informal mentor to four other centers in the past year. This has
included benchmark discussions and related resources, as well as brainstorming to improve results or
deal with challenges that center is facing.
To ensure we have a cohesive approach for shared resources and capabilities with other MEP centers,
Center has a protocol for any out of state projects to ensure a highly coordinated approach with the local
MEP center. In the past few years, there have been 48 out-of-state projects coordinated with other state
MEPs. During Center͛s proposal stage, the system creates a flag for ͞out of state͟client work. This flag
notifies the President and creates a communication plan with the other MEP center if not already
underway. This is to ensure proactive communications occur with appropriate state MEPs for determining
the best approach to serving the client. Center has provided staff expertise to multiple states in areas
from supply chain to lean and market growth.
DRAFT CPPR
Also, Center turns to neighboring states for skills and capacity as appropriate. Some examples include
added ISO capacity from Missouri Enterprise and six sigma expertise from the Purdue MEP.
Center served in the lead role for the MEP Center team that created the Supply Chain Optimization (SCO)
services that provided training on services and resources to the system.
Center, in close collaboration with the Purdue MEP, is working on the DMDII embed project. Outputs of
this work include a digital assessment and train-the-trainer resources for the MEP system. Approximately
thirty centers will have been trained in the use of the tools and services by the completion of the project.
b. Leveraged National Network
How has your Center leveraged the National Network to influence and improve your Center's overall
performance?
The information provided prior also means Center has leveraged the Network because any MEP
interaction naturally becomes a two way street providing Center the opportunity to learn and improve.
One of the most effective and beneficial activities have been the annual best practice conferences. This
presents the singular most important time to have several Center staff engaged with the other centers to
network and learn from others.
Center has been engaged with staff from all the Institute embed projects to learn about their work and
ways to integrate efforts into our in-state work.
Page 40 of 40
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Modified | 2018-08-31 |
| File Created | 2018-04-23 |