Download:
pdf |
pdfAny Manufacturing
Extension Partnership
Center Performance and
Profile Report (CPPR)
Panel Review Date: August 18, 2021
100 BUREAU DRIVE M/S 4800 GAITHERSBURG, MD
20899 www.nist.gov/mep | PHONE: (301) 975 - 5020
Page 1 of 42
Page 2 of 42
Table of Contents
I. Center Profile
4
II. Performance Measurement and Management
6
III. Market Understanding
14
IV. Business Model and Management
27
V. Financial Viability
36
VI. National Network Citizen
40
Appendix 1
42
Page 3 of 42
I. Center Profile
This section provides an overview of the Center's organizational framework. It identifies the Center type,
structure, funding streams, sub-recipients and key partners.
This information will assist the reader in understanding the framework and how this ties into the Center's market
understanding, business model and financial portfolio.
a. Center Type and Federal Funding Streams
Organization Type: University
Eligible Annual Federal Funding: $775,000.00 (Previous Award Amount: )
Center (Any Manufacturing Extension Partnership) receives roughly $608 per SME compared to the
national average of $391 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
Total NonFederal Funding
Center Operations*
MEP System
2019-01 to 2023-12
$3,775,000.00
$2,379,113.00
Coronavirus Aide Relief and
Economic Security (CARES)
NEAP
2020-06 to 2021-09
$300,000.00
$0.00
* Indicates Cost Share Is Required
b. Organizational Structure
Please provide the Center's Organizational diagram including reporting relationships to host organization,
as appropriate. Please include the following information within the organizational diagram.
(NOTE: Organizational Chart image must be a .png or .gif extension and cannot be any larger than
700x700 (10MB)). If you have challenges uploading your image, please contact the Panel Review
Manager.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Please include the host's overall reporting structure (if applicable).
All Employees Name, title and #Years in Position (#years for Senior Management Personnel only).
Please use an (*) the Senior Management Personnel within your Center.
Please identify whether your Center's board is advisory or fiduciary and where they fit into the
overall organizational diagram.
Please include all Sub-Recipients in the organizational diagram.
c. Sub-Recipient Funding Allocation
Identified below are the Center's Sub-Recipients and the funding amount allocated for each.
Page 4 of 42
Sub-Recipients in award 70NANB19H004 between 2021-01 to 2021-12
No records to display.
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)
Desciption of Key
Partner Value
College of Engineering
University
No
Internal University service
provider.
•
Department of Economic
Development
State Commerce/Economic
Development Agency
No
Main statewide economic
development organization
and former holder of the
NIST MEP award for the
State.
•
Institute of Agricultural and
Natural Resources
University
No
Provides institutional
oversight of MEP program
along with cost share.
•
Office of Research & Economic
Development
University
No
Provides cost share.
•
The Food Center
University
No
Key service provider of
technical services for food,
beverage and pet food
manufacturers.
•
Page 5 of 42
Partner Services
II. Performance Measurement and Management
The charts provided on this page and the subsequent pages presents the most recent IMPACT Metrics trends for
the Center based on a four-quarter rolling period and a comparison of the IMPACT metrics for the Center to
the National Network median, over time. This is to help the Panel and Center understand which elements are a
strength or challenge, and to foster discussions about trends, patterns and gaps for each of the IMPACT
measures. The data shown in this section and the rest of the CPPR show how the Center is doing meeting the
performance standards in three key areas; 1)Impacts, 2) Market Penetration and 3) Financial Viability.
Center IMPACT (Improving Manufacturing Productivity and Competitiveness Tracker)
and Trends
Presents the most recent IMPACT Metrics trends for the Center based on a four-quarter rolling period and a
comparison of the IMPACT metrics for the Center to the National Network median, over time. This is to help
the Panel and Center understand which elements are a strength or challenge, and to foster discussions about
trends, patterns and gaps for each of the IMPACT measures. The data shown in this section and the rest of the
CPPR show how the Center is doing meeting the performance standards in three key areas; 1)Impacts, 2)
Market Penetration and 3) Financial Viability.
Any Manufacturing Extension Partnership - 166
2021-1 - IMPACT Metrics as of Tuesday, August 10, 2021
CAR Operations Performance Management IMPACT Metrics
CAR Current Quarter Performance
Federal Funding - $775,000.09 Total Cash Resources - $911,335.59
(Four Quarter Rolling Average)
Impact Metrics
Metric
CAR Reported Impact
Normalized CAR Performance
Performance Standard
Impact data based on MEP Client Survey responses
New Sales (10)
Retained Sales (10)
Jobs Created and Retained (10)
New Investment (10)
Cost Savings (10)
Percent Improving Competitiveness (10)
Net Promoter Score(r) (10)
$5.1 M
6.6
15
$10.3 M
13.2
35
384
495.5
500
$161.1 M
207.8
15
$8.9 M
11.5
7
81.0 / 96.0
84.4%
80%
89.6 - 1.0
88.5
75
Impact data based on Client/Project Submissions
Mfg.Clients / $M Fed (15)
89
115.0
73
New Mfg.Clients / $M Fed (15)
54
70.0
29
Page 6 of 42
Supplemental Data
Survey Response Rate (0)
96.0 / 113.0
Page 7 of 42
85.0
70
Page 8 of 42
a. CAR and MEP Metrics Map
The CAR Metrics Map shows the relationship between quantifiable impact measures (new sales,
retained sales, and total cost savings (cost savings + avoid/save investment)) per client and the number
of impacted (percent improving competitiveness) clients. Displayed below are a series of “curves” where
every point along a given “curve” delivers the same total impact. Movement along a curve simply
reflects that the same impact can be achieved with many clients with a lower average impact as with
few clients with a higher average impact. The data points/curves that show movement to the right and
upper corner show higher total impact and an increase in impacted clients. Data points are based on
responses to the NIST MEP Client Survey and are calculated based on a four-quarter rolling overage.
The Y-Axis Formula is as follows: 15% of Sales (New and Retained) + Cost Savings + Avoid Investment /
Impacted Clients.
The X-Axis Formula is as follows: Number of Impacted Clients (percent improving competitiveness)/$M
Fed .
The intent of the MEP Metrics Map is to drive Centers and the Panel to observe where the Center is
currently. It will also provide an opportunity for the Center to benchmark against other Centers that may
be impacting the same number ofclients but with larger impacts or Centers that are impacting more
clients with the same impact.
Page 9 of 42
•
$3M,$5M, $10M, $20M, $50M and $100M: lines represent crude return on investment estimates
Page 10 of 42
CAR (ID 166) (X:115, Y:138)
•
•
•
NatNet (X:76, Y:516)
Any Manufacturing Extension Partnership (166)
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 11 of 42
b. Based on your performance to date:
i. Performance and Evaluation Management System (PEMS)
Please describe the Center's PEMS. How does the PEMS help the Center achieve a high and
sustainable level of performance on the IMPACT Metrics?
N/A
ii. Performance Trends/Patterns
Please review the trends/patterns of the 10 IMPACT Metrics indicators shown on the previous
pages.
In looking at the IMPACT Metrics shown on the previous pages, please describe which top four
trends tend to stand out to your Center and why? Which metrics are the easiest and hardest for
the Center to achieve and what has the Center found that has enabled them to meet the metrics
consistently or not?
N/A
iii. Leveraging Performance Metrics
Outside of the IMPACT Metrics, what internal metrics does your Center use to measure
performance? How do you foresee these changing?
N/A
iv. Impact of Funding Streams on Performance
If the Center has additional cooperative agreements beyond the Center Operations (Base)
agreement (see Center Funding Streams chart in Section I Center Profile); how have these
projects affected the Center’s resources and overall performance?
N/A
v. Leveraging External Resources to Increase Market Penetration and Improve Performance
How do your Sub-Recipients, 3rd Party Providers and/or Key Partners help the Center achieve
greater impact and market penetration?
N/A
vi. Leveraging Oversight Board
Page 12 of 42
Please describe how the Center’s Board supports and contributes to the overall performance of
the Center. In particular, please explain how the board composition, terms, and the industries the
board members represent are utilized to support the performance of the Center.
N/A
vii. Key Stakeholder Mandates/Requirements
Please identify any major mandates/requirements given by the host, State and/or key
stakeholders that require the Center to target specific manufacturers in particular industries, size
segments or in geographical areas. How do these requirements affect your performance on the
IMPACT Metrics?
N/A
viii. Performance Challenge
Please identify the top challenge that significantly hinders your Center’s ability to improve overall
performance now and in the future.
N/A
Page 13 of 42
III. Market Understanding
This section identifies the Center’s service territory (regional offices, rural counties and number of manufacturing
establishments). The data presented in this section is intended to highlight the Center’s ability to achieve both
impacts and market penetration. It also identifies the types of businesses working with the Center. These types
are compared to either the state or National Network. The data also provides a comparison across employment
size and NAICS code.
Based on the Center’s analysis of their current market, we begin to learn how this impacts and/or informs the
Center’s approach for targeting certain types of clients and identifying the appropriate services to meet the
challenges of manufacturers.
Finally, the Center has established Operating Outcome goals for Very Small, Rural, Start-Up, Transformational,
Other and Unique Manufacturers (shown in the Operating Outcome Table). This table shows the Center’s
progress towards these goals.
Please look at how the data correlates with the other data points presented within this document to better identify
potential best practices and/or gaps in performance. The various data points are intended to show possible
indicators for strong or weak performance.
a. Center's Service Territory
Provided below is a map of the Center's service territory as follows:
•
•
•
Location of Headquarter, Sub-recipient and Field Offices as designated in MEIS.
Concentration of Rural vs. Urban manufacturers by county within the state.
Number of manufacturing establishments in the Center's service territory.
Page 14 of 42
Page 15 of 42
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:
•
•
•
Number of Center's Manufacturing Clients by zip code (4Q).
Concentration of Rural vs Urban manufacturers by county in Center's service territory.
Number of Manufacturing Establishments by county in the Center's service territory.
Page 16 of 42
c. Operating Outcomes Engagement Goals
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 to be active in every element of the categories identified below).
2014-3
2014-2
Over 3 years
Goal
(2014-1 - 2016-4)
2014-1
1
2
2
22
2
0
1
1
30
1
4
1
0
1
4
0
0
6
0
0
0
10
1
0
0
1
2
5
3
36
10
2
1
4
8
3
8
6
54
67%
10%
50%
100%
50%
100%
100%
100%
36%
65
36%
33%
90%
50%
64%
35
Top Line Growth Bottom Line
Growth
2014-4
7
2
1
0
5
3
64%
32%
Other Manufacturers Total unique
manufacturers
2015-2
3
0
0
0
0
33
68%
Period
2015-3
1
1
0
0
13
44
Transformational
Clients (NIST MEP
Defined)
2015-4
1
4
0
6
17
Rural Establishments Start-up
(Use USDA Definition) Establishments
2016-2
3
2
6
8
Very Small
Establishments
< 20 employees
2016-3
2
9
8
GOAL
2016-4
15
12
2016-1
2015-1
Total Unique
20
50%
Projected
Page 17 of 42
2020-3
2020-2
2020-1
2019-4
2019-3
2019-2
Over 3 years
Goal
(2019-1 - 2021-4)
2019-1
Projected
Total Unique
2018-4
2018-3
2018-2
2018-1
2017-4
2017-3
2017-2
Over 2 years
Goal
(2017-1 - 2018-4)
2017-1
9
14
3
5
12
6
6
2
20
22
22
3
9
3
0
3
5
3
2
19
12
15
32
11
8
19
12
8
4
34
33
33
9
12
6
1
2
12
4
1
32
0
3
5
7
1
1
4
2
2
0
1
6
6
1
2
0
0
2
1
2
0
N/A
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
3
12
13
24
9
4
13
4
7
3
45
26
26
6
8
4
4
3
6
2
0
37
6
27
33
63
23
15
40
21
18
8
105
74
74
17
25
11
5
7
22
9
2
100
37%
62%
24%
17%
56%
30
26%
11%
4%
18%
40%
29%
5%
11%
100%
27
63%
38%
76%
100%
100%
83%
44%
70
74%
89%
96%
82%
60%
71%
95%
89%
73
2020-4
8
2
100%
95%
100%
100%
2021-1
1
5%
2021-2
2021-3
Page 18 of 42
Total Unique
55
46
89
74
18
15
2
2
56
47
172
143
20%
24%
80%
76%
Over 3 years
2021-4
(2019-1 - 2021-4)
Projected
Page 19 of 42
d. Client Mix
Page 20 of 42
Note: The NAICS codes identified above represent the following:
•
•
•
•
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"
Page 21 of 42
e. Client Challenges / Needs
f. Service Delivery by Substance
Page 22 of 42
g. Projects by Project Mode
Page 23 of 42
Page 24 of 42
h. Based on your market understanding and the data shown in this section:
i. Recent Market Analysis
When was the last market analysis completed by the Center? Please describe how your Center
leveraged the results from the market analysis to inform your approach to the market? What is
the Center’s future plans for market analysis?
N/A
ii. Center Service Delivery Locations
Please describe the Center’s approach for identifying service delivery locations and how these
locations enable the Center to reach all manufacturers in the state? How has this distribution of
service delivery locations affected the Center’s performance?
N/A
iii. Center Operating Outcomes
Please describe how your Center uses the progress towards the established Operating Outcome
Goals (refer to table in this section) to self-assess performance? How has the emphasis on these
types of clients (i.e., Rural, Very Small, Start Up, Transformational, etc) affected the Center’s
overall performance?
N/A
iv. Client Mix
Does the center segment the market in terms of client mix around the three dimensions or size,
geography and/or industry? How has the Center’s client mix led to the performance your Center
is experiencing today and how do you see this current mix changing based on data shown in this
section?
N/A
v. Greatest Opportunities of Dimensions
Which of the dimensions (size, geography and/or industry) provide the greatest opportunity to
serve more clients and generate greater impacts? Please describe.
N/A
vi. Responding to Client Challenges
Page 25 of 42
How do you see your Center’s service delivery offerings shifting to address the challenges of your
clients (as shown in the Client Challenges Chart)?
N/A
vii. Challenges Addressing the Market
Based on the data and the questions presented in this section, what is the Center’s main
challenge for understanding and addressing the needs of manufacturer’s in the state? What do
you think would help you respond more effectively to these needs?
N/A
Page 26 of 42
IV. Business Model and Management
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.
a. Business Model Overview
Please describe your Business Model and how your model supports the execution of your Center’s
Strategy and the MEP National Network ™ Strategic Plan. Please include the role that sub-recipients
(where applicable), 3rd party providers, and other partners such as industry associations, universities,
community/technical colleges, economic development organizations and Federal, State and local
government agencies support the execution of your business model.
N/A
b. Client Engagement Model
Please describe the client engagement model the Center uses in serving manufacturers. Please describe
the process your Center goes through from first engagement with the client to completion of the
survey.
N/A
c. FTE Overview
The charts provided below identify the Center's FTE distribution and FTE per $M Fed over a specific timeframe based on information provided by the Center in MEIS. (Note: FTEs must 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.
i. FTE Distribution by Technical, Sales, Management and Other
Page 27 of 42
d. 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 Providers as presented in MEIS. If this information is inaccurate, please
update the information in MEIS. Note: This information is based on CAR and TPP reported project
hours over the Center's current cooperative agreement lifecycle.
Page 28 of 42
e. Capacity Utilization Indicators
i. Clients per Delivery FTE
Page 29 of 42
ii. Projects Per Client
iii. Hours Per Client
Page 30 of 42
iv. Projects Per $M Fed
v. Project Intensity Distribution
Page 31 of 42
vi. Total Project Value Per Hour
vii. Hours per Delivery FTE
Page 32 of 42
Page 33 of 42
f. Based on Your Center's Business Model and Management:
i. Business and Client Engagement Model - Effectiveness in Reaching More Clients and
Generating Impacts
How does your business and client engagement model enable the Center to reach the greatest
number of clients and generate the most impact?
N/A
ii. Organizational Structure-Promoting Future Performance Growth
How does your Center's organizational structure support your performance and how will this
support future performance growth?
N/A
iii. Management of Sub-Recipients, 3rd Party Providers and Key Partners
Please describe how your Center manages Sub-Recipient, 3rd Party Providers, Key Partners and
Stakeholders so that the Center performance and brand is a priority?
N/A
iv. Process to Identify and Implement New Products and/or Services
What is the process the Center uses to identify new products and/or services? How does the
Center balance innovation/product service development with sustaining and improving
performance? How is the staffing and/or use of external resources deployed to implement new
products or services?
N/A
v. Plans for Building Capacity
Does your Center see investing in new initiatives as an opportunity to improve performance?
Why or why not? Please describe.
N/A
vi. Performance Continuity
Page 34 of 42
Does your Center have a risk mitigation plan in place to effectively transfer organizational
knowledge and expertise as your Center experiences turnover of staff to avoid potential adverse
effects on Center performance? If so, please describe key elements of your Center's plan. If not,
what is the approach your Center will take in the event this happens?
N/A
vii. Business Model and Management Challenge
When thinking about your business model, client engagement model, internal and external
resources you have available to serve the manufacturers in your state, what would you say is
your biggest challenge that may impact your overall performance?
N/A
Page 35 of 42
V. Financial Viability
In this section, the focus is on the Center’s ability to manage, leverage and execute financial resources. The table
below shows the Center’s cost share portfolio over time. The budget table also shows the utilization of federal
funding over time which may provide some insight to challenges the Center faces in leveraging all sources of
funding. The table shows changes since the start of the cooperative agreement.
Page 36 of 42
a. Center Federal Funding - Requested vs Expended
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Actual as of:
2018-12-31
Budget
The table below identifies the Center's requested annual Federal and Non-Federal funding vs. what the Center expended for each of the
operating years. The current year shows year to date progress based on the latest reported information. Also identified in the table is the
Center's projected Federal funding and Non-Federal cost share for future operation years.
Eligible Federal Funding: $675,000.00
Year 1
Budget
$495,173.00
Actual as of:
2017-12-31
$444,815.19
Budget
$268,560.00
$104,827.00
Actual as of:
2016-12-31
$90,732.81
$104,827.00
Budget
$350,000.00
$331,440.00
Actual as of:
2015-12-31
$350,000.00
$331,440.00
Budget
$329,431.00
$401,702.00
Actual as of:
2014-12-31
$186,695.00
$165,000.00
$250,000.00
$600,000.00
$165,000.00
$270,569.00
NIST MEP Funds
$270,569.00
Revenue (Federal and Non-Federal
Cost Share)
Unexpended Federal Funds
(From prior operating year)
to be used ABOVE base
State/Local Funds
Applicant Contribution Cash
NIST MEP Supplemental
Funds
Unexpended Federal Funds
(From prior operating year)
to be used TOWARD base
$379,724.00
$32,800.00
$368,554.28
$22,347.53
$187,475.00
$340,766.00
$159,034.00
$333,551.14
$157,541.00
$1,199,999.00
$344,287.00
$182,009.00
$1,099,578.00
$243,656.00
$565.00
$6,582.00
$1,098,307.00
$244,311.00
$565.00
$70,971.00
$38,454.00
$1,174,107.00
$134,263.00
$42,928.00
$96,686.00
$86,653.00
$1,040,240.00
$33,089.00
$90,015.00
$1,129,053.00
$33,089.09
$30,247.00
$891,072.00
$60,879.00
$764,510.00
$937,732.95
$102,775.91
State/Local Cash
State/Local In-Kind
Unexpended Program
Income (From prior
operating year)
Program Income
Total Other
Total Other Cash
Total Other In-Kind
Total Revenue (Federal and NonFederal Cost Share)
Page 37 of 42
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
Total Other
Total Other Cash
Total Other In-Kind
Total Revenue (Federal and NonFederal Cost Share)
Budget
$165,235.00
$408,456.00
$675,000.00
Year 6
Actual as of:
2019-12-31
$675,000.00
$408,456.00
$165,235.00
$1,248,691.00 $1,248,691.00
Year 7
Actual as of:
2020-12-31
Budget
Year 8
Actual as of:
2021-05-31
Budget
$220,223.00
Year 9
Actual as of:
N/A
Budget
Budget
Year 10
Actual as of:
N/A
$775,000.00
$657,938.00
$775,000.00
$657,938.00
$117,062.00
$775,000.00
$117,062.00
$49,351.00
$7,967.00
$444,000.00
$127,184.00
$32,220.00
$441,962.00
$143,107.00
$9,857.00
$83,726.00
$9,832.00
$54,606.00
$331,000.00
$26,688.00
$333,038.00
$107,926.00
$1,550,000.00
$356,400.00
$1,550,000.00
$938,729.00
$866,693.00
$1,035,865.00
Page 38 of 42
b. Based on your Center Financials:
i. Leveraging Unexpended Federal Funds and Unexpended Program Income
If your Center has Unexpended Federal Funds and/or Unexpended Program Income, please
explain how this came about and how your Center plans to leverage these funds to support
future activities and performance.
N/A
ii. Cost Share Contingency Plan
If the Center was faced with a potential reduction/loss of cost share – what is the contingency
plan the Center has in place to avoid a negative impact on continuity of service and performance?
Please describe.
N/A
iii. Effect of State Funding
Please describe any State funding the Center receives (direct or indirect) and how it impacts the
centers programming, market penetration or impact achievement? Does your Center receive
funding from the State to subsidize projects with manufacturers? If so, how has this impacted
your overall performance?
N/A
iv. Potential Challenge/Barrier to Meet Cost Share Requirements
What would your Center identify as a potential challenge/barrier for meeting the program's cost
share requirement and how does this effect Center performance and your strategy?
N/A
Page 39 of 42
VI. National Network Citizen
The MEP National Network is comprised of MEP Centers working together to leverage capabilities in
collaboration with NIST MEP and key industry and stakeholder partners. The MEP National Network enhances
each individual Center’s ability to serve more manufacturers with more diverse services and increases market
penetration, impact and new project opportunities. By leveraging staff expertise across the Network, Centers can
quickly offer new services or augment existing services and access expanded resources that can respond to the
market needs. Manufacturers benefit by getting the right service at the right time. Because of limited resources,
individual Centers do not always have the capacity or capability to respond to every challenge a manufacturer
may encounter. Leveraging Network capabilities empowers Centers to bring powerful solutions to companies in a
timely manner at an affordable rate.
a. Based on the Intent of the National Network:
i. Contribution to National Network
Please describe a single best practice at your Center that you are willing to share with the
National Network. How has this best practice affected your Center’s performance (please include
quantitative data)?
N/A
ii. Leveraging a Best Practice from the National Network
Please describe a Center best practice you have applied from another Center that's had a positive
impact on your Center’s overall performance. Please include where this improvement is shown in
the IMPACT Metrics.
N/A
iii. Importance of the National Network as a Benchmark
To what extent is the National Network an important benchmark for your Center as it relates to
improving performance? 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? If the National Network isn’t
one your Center uses, please describe the group(s) to which your Center actively benchmarks
against and why.
N/A
iv. National Network Challenge
What is your Center’s greatest challenge of operating within a more integrated Network?
N/A
Page 40 of 42
Page 41 of 42
Appendix 1
The reporting periods used for charts in this document are based on first full 4 quarters worth of data from the start of
the awards used for this review up through last full 4 quarters worth of data based on today.
Funding Agreement Number Recipient
Year
Start Quarter
End Quarter
70NANB14H013 Board of Regents
2014-1
2018-4
70NANB19H004 Board of Regents
2019-1
2023-4
Start Quarter
End Quarter
1
2013-2
2014-1
2
2014-2
2015-1
3
2015-2
2016-1
4
2016-2
2017-1
5
2017-2
2018-1
6
2018-2
2019-1
7
2019-2
2020-1
8
2020-2
2021-1
Page 42 of 42
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Modified | 2021-08-11 |
| File Created | 2021-08-10 |