investing in manufacturing communities partnership ... · northwest georgia regional advanced...

INVESTING IN MANUFACTURING COMMUNITIES PARTNERSHIP

REGIONAL ADVANCED MANUFACTURING STRATEGY DRAFT FINAL

for the NORTHWEST GEORGIA REGIONAL COMMISSION

November 2014

Copyright © 2014 | All Rights Reserved | Georgia Tech Research Corporation | Atlanta, GA 30332

PREPARED BY: Georgia Tech Enterprise Innovation Institute 75 5th Street, NW, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30308

PREPARED FOR: Northwest Georgia Regional Commission 503 West Waugh StreetDalton, GA 30720

NORTHWEST GEORGIA REGIONAL ADVANCED MANUFACTURING STRATEGY - DRAFT FINAL

GEORGIA TECH ENTERPRISE INNOVATION INSTITUTE

NOVEMBER 2014

2

TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION 6

ABOUT THE PARTNERSHIP 6

CORE GROUP 7

IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 8

WORKING GROUPS 9

PROJECT OVERVIEW 11

COMMUNITY PROFILE 16

WORKFORCE SKILLS/NEEDS ASSESSMENT 29

TARGET INDUSTRY ANALYSIS 48

ADVANCED MANUFACTURING STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS 69

STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION 109

APPENDIX A: RESOURCES 112

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW ANALYSIS 115

APPENDIX C: IMCP ALIGNED AGENCIES & PROGRAMS ROAD MAP 132

Cover images (L to R): Carolina Textile District, IMEC, The Sourcing Place



NOVEMBER 2014

3

LIST OF TABLESTable 1: Total Population (1980 - 2010) 17Table 2: Age Distribution (1980-2010) 17Table 3: Decade-Over-Decade Change in Racial Composition 18Table 4: Decade-Over-Decade Hispanic or Latino Population Growth 19Table 5: Public School Graduation Rates, 2012 20Table 6: Technical College Degrees Obtained by Program (2012) 21Table 7: Home to Work Distance for Northwest Georgia WIA 23Table 8: Total Employment and Establishments in the Northwest Georgia Region 24Table 9: Northwest Georgia Region’s Employment in Manufacturing Subsectors 24Table 10: Floor Covering Industry Cluster KTS National Rank 27Table 11: Top 15 Occupations by Current Job Openings Advertised, May 2014 30Table 12: Forecasted Stable or Growing Occupations (2013 - 2018) 34Table 13: Forecasted Occupations That Fare Better in the Carpet Industry, 2013 - 2018 35Table 14: Northwest Georgia Industry Announcements (FY13 - FY15) 36Table 15: Greatest Number of “Original” Jobs Held in the Industry 37Table 16: Greatest Number of “Initial” Jobs Based on Industry Announcements 39Table 17: Greatest Number of “Direct” Jobs Based on Industry Announcements 40Table 18: Greatest Number of “Indirect” Jobs Based on Industry Announcements 41Table 19: Greatest Number of “Induced” Jobs Based on Industry Announcements 42Table 20: Program Enrollment, 2014 43Table 21: Top Industry Employers of Recent Graduates (Dalton State University) 44Table 22: Industry College Training Programs 45Table 23: Northwest Georgia Patent Activity as a Percent of the State 46Table 24: Dalton MSA Patent Activity in the Textile Technology Class and All Other Technology Classes 47Table 25: Average Weekly Wages Cutoff for High-Wage Industries in Northwest Georgia 49Table 26: NAICS Industries in the Northwest Georgia Region, 2012, with AWW Above the High-Wage Cutoff 51Table 27: High-Wage Industry Summary for the Northwest Georgia Region 53Table 28: Selected Manufacturing Industries for Further Consideration 56Table 29: Job Growth/Decline in the Northwest Georgia Region Manufacturing Industries 57Table 30: Selected Wholesale Trade Industries for Further Consideration 58Table 31: Selected Transportation and Warehousing Industries for Further Consideration 59Table 32: Selected Business and Consumer Services Industries for Further Consideration 59Table 33: Supplier Industries for NAICS 314 – Textile Product 61Table 34: Supplier Industries for NAICS 326 – Plastics and Rubber Product 62Table 35: Supplier Industries for NAICS 337 – Furniture & Related Products 62Table 36: Supplier Industries for NAICS 335 – Electrical Equipment Manufacturing 63Table 37: Supplier Industries for NAICS 325 – Chemical Manufacturing 63Table 38: Floor Covering Industry Cluster, Change in LQ, (2002 - 2012) 64Table 39: Floor Covering Industry Cluster, Job and Growth Projection (2012 - 2022) 65Table 40: Logic Matrix for Implementation 70Table 41: IMCP Aligned Programs Applicable to the Northwest Georgia Advanced Manufacturing Strategy 110Table 42: Industry Response Post-Recession 115Table 43: Industry Strengths Post-Recession 116Table 44: Industry Weaknesses Post-Recession 116Table 45: Suggested Focus Areas for Improving Workforce Development and Training 117



NOVEMBER 2014

4

Table 46: Suggested Focus Areas for Improving Supplier Networks 117Table 47: Suggested Focus Areas for Improving the Experience of Small and Medium Businesses 118Table 48: Suggested Focus Areas for Improving Research and Innovation 118Table 49: Suggested Focus Areas for Improving to Exporting, Trade, and International Investment 118Table 50: Suggested Focus Areas for Improving Access to Capital 119Table 51: Opportunities for Collaboration for Potential Manufacturing R+D Center 119Table 52: Areas “Off-Limits” for Potential Manufacturing R+D Center 120Table 53: Potential Funding Sources for a Manufacturing R+D Center 120Table 54: Potential Operational Structure for a Manufacturing R+D Center 121Table 55: Sources of Industry Innovation 122Table 56: Suggestions for Leveraging Innovation 123Table 57: Suggestions for Engaging Youth 125Table 58: Industry Response Post-Recession 126Table 59: Industry Strengths Post-Recession 127Table 60: Industry Weaknesses Post-Recession 127Table 61: Suggested Industry Priorities for Continued Growth 128Table 62: Would a Manufacturing R&D Center Make Sense for the Region? 128Table 63: Potential Funding Sources for a Manufacturing R+D Center 129Table 64: Potential Operational Structure for a Manufacturing R+D Center 129Table 65: Suggestions for Engaging Youth 130



NOVEMBER 2014

5

LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1: “Wordle” Created by Ideation Session. 14Figure 2: Population Growth Rate Over Prior Decade 16Figure 3: Comparative Age by Sex Distribution (2010) 17Figure 4: Race Distribution, 1980 - 2010 18Figure 5: Hispanic or Latino Population, 1980 - 2010 19Figure 6: School Enrollment, 1980-2010 19Figure 7: WIA (15-County) Educational Attainment 20Figure 8: School Dropout Rates for the Population 20Figure 9: Unemployment Rate for Civilian Population, Age 16 and Over, 2012 22Figure 10: Percentage of Unemployment by Sex, 2012 22Figure 11: Percentage of Unemployment by Race and Ethnicity, 2012 22Figure 12: Job Counts for All Workers by Distance/Direction, 2002, 2011 23Figure 13: Northwest Georgia Floor Covering Employment 25Figure 14: Floor Covering Industry Cluster Growth Analysis 26Figure 15: Per Capita Income 27Figure 16: Average Annual Pay for Manufacturing Jobs 28Figure 17: Average Annual Pay for Northwest Georgia Floor Covering Jobs 28Figure 18: Top Knowledge Requirements 31Figure 19: Top Skills Required 31Figure 20: Top Abilities Required 32Figure 21: Top Work Activities Required 32Figure 22: Top Work Styles Required 33Figure 23: Annual Percent Change in Patent Activity 46Figure 24: Average Weekly Wage in Northwest Georgia and Georgia (2002, 2007, and 2012) 49Figure 25: 2012 Average Weekly Wages Frequency Chart 50Figure 26: Respondent Industry 115Figure 27: Top Products Purchased 121Figure 28: State Where Products Are Purchased 122Figure 29: Country Where Products Are Purchased 122Figure 30: Top Certificate Programs 123Figure 31: Top Degree Programs 124Figure 32: Top 4-Year Colleges and Universities 124Figure 33: Top Technical Schools and 2-Year Colleges 124Figure 34: Company Skills Gaps 125Figure 35: External Partner Sector 126



NOVEMBER 2014

6

INTRODUCTION Led by the Economic Development Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership (IMCP) program is an Administration-wide initiative that is designed to accelerate the resurgence of manufacturing and help cultivate an environment for businesses to create well-paying manufacturing jobs in regions across the country. IMCP directly supports the President Obama’s Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, launched in 2011, and is a critical component of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s “Open for Business Agenda,” which prioritizes trade and investment.

In September 2013, the Northwest Georgia region received one of 26 U.S. Department of Commerce challenge grant awards for IMCP made across the country to develop a regional advanced manufacturing strategy focused on the floorcovering industry. The Georgia Tech Enterprise Innovation Institute (EI²) led the advanced manufacturing strategy with key partner, the Northwest Georgia Regional Commission (NWGRC), serving as the recipient of the award.

The NWGRC and EI² applied for the second phase of IMCP, designation as an EDA-designated manufacturing community, in April 2014. The designation is designed to accelerate the resurgence of manufacturing in communities nationwide by supporting the implementation of long-term economic development strategies to help communities attract and expand investment in the manufacturing sector and increase international trade and exports. EDA manufacturing communities receive preference points on federally-aligned funding program applications, and exposure to additional investment opportunities.

In May 2014, the Northwest Georgia region received the designation, led by the Northwest Georgia Regional Commission. One of only 12 communities in the nation to receive the designation, the northwest Georgia community will receive support for the implementation of their advanced manufacturing strategy from eleven federal agencies with $1.3 billion available in federal economic development assistance. This support includes a designated federal liaison at each partner agency, and recognition on a government website promoting the community’s competitive assets to both foreign and domestic prospective investors.

ABOUT THE PARTNERSHIPNorthwest Georgia Regional Commission

The Northwest Georgia Regional Commission is a multi-county organization consisting of 15 Northwest Georgia counties and 49 municipalities. Major responsibilities of the regional development center include: (1) implementation of the Georgia Planning Act of 1989; (2) administration of the Area Agency on Aging; (3) administration of the Workforce Investment Act; and (4) providing planning and development assistance to member governments in areas they could not otherwise afford.

Georgia Tech Enterprise Innovation Institute (EI²)

Georgia Tech Enterprise Innovation Institute (EI²) is Georgia Tech’s business outreach organization and serves as the primary vehicle to achieve Georgia Tech’s goal of expanded local, regional, and global outreach. Georgia Tech’s EI² strives to implement its vision of “redefining the service role of the technological research university in the 21st Century economy” by applying innovative solutions to increase the competitiveness of communities through practical hands-on experience, leveraging the resources of Georgia Tech. EI² assists local communities throughout Georgia and beyond, linking public sector organizations and nonprofits to cost-effective solutions to meet goals that are unique to those enterprises.



NOVEMBER 2014

7

CORE GROUPBrian Anderson (Chair)President, Greater Dalton Chamber of Commerce

David AppleNorthwest Region Manager, Georgia Tech Enterprise Innovation Institute

Andreas BruhwilerPresident & Owner, Alrol of America, Inc.

Carl CampbellSr. Project Manager, Georgia Department of Economic Development

Andrew CarnesDirector, Economic DevelopmentGreater Dalton Chamber of Commerce

Brian CookseyDirector of Employee Operations Training and Development, Shaw Industries

Darrell EdwardsPlant Manager, Calhoun Fibers, Beaulieu Group

Louis FordhamVice President, J&J IndustriesWhitfield School Board Chair

Sarah Harrison Workforce Representative, Northwest Georgia Regional Commission

Jim HenryBoard, Northwest Georgia Regional Commission

David HowerinDirector of Regional Planning, Northwest Georgia Regional Commission

Greg LaudemanPrincipal, Greg Laudeman Consulting

Pete McDonaldPresident, Georgia Northwestern Technical College

Julie MeadowsEconomic Development Representative, Northwest Georgia Regional Commission

Ty RossCity Administrator, City of Dalton

Leamon ScottRegional Manager, Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Peter SigmonVice President of Innovation, Shaw

Dr. Brittney WilsonCalhoun City Chief Academic Officer, Calhoun City Schools

Barbara WardDirector of Workforce Development, Greater Dalton Chamber of Commerce

Ken WrightDirector of Business & Industry, Greater Rome Chamber of Commerce

Joe YarbroughExecutive Director, Carpet and Rug Institute

John ZegersDirector, Georgia Center of Innovation for Manufacturing



NOVEMBER 2014

8

IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEEBrian AndersonPresident, Greater Dalton Chamber of Commerce

Andreas BruhwilerPresident and Owner, Alrol of America, Inc.

Carl CampbellProject Manager, Georgia Department of Economic Development


Garen EvansAssociate Professor of Economics, Dalton State College

Louis FordhamVice President, J&J IndustriesWhitfield School Board Chair

Jeff GazawayPlant Manager, EVCO Plastics



Larry JohnsonDean, Dalton State College

Greg LaudemanPrincipal, Greg Laudeman Consulting

Melinda LemmonExecutive Director, Cartersville-Bartow County Economic Development

Pete McDonaldPresident, Georgia Northwestern Technical College


John NealDirector, Anna Sue and Bob Shaw Foundation

Peter SigmonVice President of Innovation, Shaw Industries


Stephanie WatkinsProgram Director, Southeast Industrial Development Association

Dr. Brittney WilsonChief Academic Officer, Calhoun City SchoolsKen WrightDirector of Business & Industry, Greater Rome Chamber of Commerce


Joe YarboughPresident, Carpet and Rug Institute

John ZegersDirector, Center of Innovation for Manufacturing



NOVEMBER 2014

9

WORKING GROUPS

InfrastructureAndrew CarnesExecutive Director of Economic Development,Greater Dalton Chamber of Commerce

Carl CampbellProject Manager, Georgia Department of Economic Development

Elyse Cochran-DavisNorthwest Georgia Region Manager, Community and Economic Development, Georgia Power


Kathy JohnsonPresident, Gordon County Chamber of Commerce

Greg Laudeman (Chair)Principal, Greg Laudeman Consulting


Patrick VickersRegion 1 Representative, Georgia Department of Community Affairs

PartnershipsCathy AmosPresident, Norville Industries

Brian Anderson (Chair)President, Greater Dalton Chamber of Commerce

Keith BarcliftProject Manager, Northwest Georgia Joint Development Authority

Jeff GazawayPlant Manager, EVCO Plastics

Tina GuldbergDirector, Strategic Partnerships. Georgia Tech Manufacturing Institute

Partnerships (continued)Melinda LemmonExecutive Director, Cartersville-Bartow County Economic Development

Brittany PittmanSole Commissioner, Murray County


Joe YarboughPresident, Carpet and Rug Institute

John ZegersDirector, Center of Innovation for Manufacturing

Research, Innovation, and SustainabilityZack AdamsonDirector of Human Resources, Engineered Floors

David AppleNorthwest Region Manager, Georgia Manufacturing Extension Partnership (GaMEP)

Darrell EdwardsPlant Manager, Calhoun Fibers, Beaulieu Group

Tim EickmanEngineer/Production Supervisor, Cargill

Larry JohnsonDean, Dalton State College

Paul Murray (Chair)Vice President of Sustainability, Shaw Industries

Bob PeoplesExecutive Director, Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE)

David ReppCFO, Mohawk HomeBoard Member, Gordon County Chamber of Commerce

Peter SigmonVice President of Innovation, Shaw Industries



NOVEMBER 2014

10

Workforce and EducationRhonda BeasleyHuman Resources Manager, Roper Corporation

Andreas BruhwilerPresident and Owner, Alrol of America, Inc.



Louis Fordham (Chair)Vice President, J&J IndustriesWhitfield School Board Chair


Howard HinesleySuperintendent, Cartersville School System

Pete McDonaldPresident, Greater Northwestern Technical College

David MoellerChief Executive Office and CTAE Director, Northwest Georgia College and Career Academy

John MorehouseDirector, Manufacturing Education Programs and Partnerships, Georgia Tech Manufacturing Institute

Micah RiggleDirector of Human Resources, IVC US, Inc.

Merrill WilcoxAppalachian Coordinator, Great Promise Partnership

Dr. Brittney WilsonChief Academic Officer, Calhoun City Schools

Marketing Peter CervelliExecutive Director, Dade County Industrial Development Authority

Tara ChapmanExecutive Director, Haralson County Development Authority

Paige GreenPresident, Gilmer County Chamber of Commerce

John KenyonMarketing Media Specialist, Georgia Northwestern Technical College

Ginger MathisVice President for Academic Affairs, Georgia Northwestern Technical College

Pam PartainMarketing & Communications, Dalton State College

Paul SabinCEO, Bartow County College and Career Academy

Stephanie ScearceExecutive Director, Fannin County Development Authority

Dr. John Schwenn (Chair)President, Dalton State College

Eric WatersCEO, Floyd County College and Career Academy



NOVEMBER 2014

11

PROJECT OVERVIEW The Northwest Georgia Regional Advanced Manufacturing Strategy illustrates best practices in attracting and expanding floor covering manufacturing by using long-term planning that targets investments in workforce training, small and medium size manufacturers, supply chain support, infrastructure, export promotion, and research – to support the region’s advanced manufacturing ecosystem. The following plan provides 1) a detailed analysis of the region’s competitive advantage in the floor covering industry; 2) promotes making investments in public goods to boost innovation in the industry; and 3) encourages collaboration among institutions of higher-education, the private sector and local government, which may expand the area’s commercial appeal to investors.

The Northwest Georgia Regional Advanced Manufacturing Strategy will remain in effect for five years (2014 – 2019), at which time the NWGRC will convene the Implementation Committee to revise the strategy based on the changing needs of the community and industry.

Planning ProcessIn developing the Advanced Manufacturing Strategy for the Northwest Georgia region, Georgia Tech worked closely with a core group of local stakeholders representing advanced manufacturing and the floor covering industry, secondary and post-secondary education, the public sector, as well as regional and state partners, to conduct a thorough assessment of the region’s future needs for advanced manufacturing, including:

1. Baseline demographic and economic analyses

2. Employment and occupational analyses, focusing on:

◦ Growth in the manufacturing sector, as evidenced by regional occupational projections and job announcements

◦ Assessment of the existing local workforce skills in comparison to those needed to fill industry demands

◦ An educational infrastructure analysis, assessing the alignment of formal educational programs and the development of project-based learning opportunities with identified industry needs

3. Target industry and cluster analyses, including a supply chain analysis for the floor covering industry

4. Stakeholder Interviews

5. Best Practice Research

Georgia Tech and the NWGRC worked with several key groups during the strategy’s development. A “Core Group” was developed to guide the planning process and serve in an advisory capacity to the project team. An “Implementation Committee” was formed to develop a realistic set of actionable goals and strategies to be implemented in the region, and “Working Groups” were formed to hone in on specific groups of projects that directly tied to the strategy’s vision. These groups worked in concert with each other to ensure the continued economic competitiveness and growth of advanced manufacturing in the Northwest Georgia region.

Key milestones in the strategic planning process are described in further detail in the following section.

Kick-Off Meeting

Preliminary research with the NWGRC and identification of key stakeholders began soon after award of the grant, in October 2013. Principal Investigator (PI) Leigh Hopkins kicked off the project with a meeting with



NOVEMBER 2014

12

the NWGRC on November 11th 2013, at the Greater Dalton Chamber of Commerce. Community leaders were invited from around the region, including manufacturers from the floor covering industry, small and medium-sized suppliers, primary, secondary and higher education, local government, and state and regional partners. A “core group” was established at that meeting who were instrumental in the development of the plan, and will drive the successful implementation of the plan. Georgia Tech has been working with the core group throughout each step of the planning process. The core group was established to share updates on research, and ensure that the project addresses the manufacturing community’s key concerns and needs. Brian Anderson, President and CEO of the Greater Dalton Chamber of Commerce, was designated the process leader for this group. As the process leader, this point person ensures an efficient exchange of information, assistance with scheduling meetings, coordination of the stakeholder interviews, and other logistical support, as needed.

We began with the question, “how do you define advanced manufacturing?” The group agreed that advanced manufacturing could be considered a mind-set and it depends on the product, but advanced manufacturing is bigger than an automated room. The natural direction of the meeting led to a discussion on workforce development, as there’s an immediate need to train and hire in the region. Currently, there are more than 500 jobs that could be immediately filled if the workforce was trained and available. Though there are several existing workforce training programs in the region, the group felt that an endorsement from industry was needed, indicating that training programs are worthwhile. The group thought that advanced manufacturing continues to “advance” through the process of innovation. However, innovation can change streamlined processes, and that can cause hesitation for some manufacturers. Some in the group felt that innovation comes from pilot equipment, vendors who have new technology, and suppliers.

The group agreed to move toward a meeting with the CEO’s of some of the larger manufacturers, which would be needed to get the mutual buy-in necessary to implement a bricks-and-mortar solution to some of the current challenges that the industry and community face in growing well-paying advanced manufacturing jobs in the region. The group also agreed that while the focus of this project is the floor covering industry, the end-product needs to have application to other industries in the region.

Review of Recent Plans & Initiatives

To ensure the project began by building upon the Northwest Georgia region’s previous studies and current initiatives, Georgia Tech reviewed all strategic documents, reports, and initiatives that relate to the future of advanced manufacturing in the region. A list of all plans, studies and resources reviewed can be found in Appendix A.

Data Collection

From November 2013 through January 2014, the project team collected various pieces of secondary data to inform the economic and demographic character of the 15-county region. The team conducted a review of previous programs and studies, including Georgia Work Ready, the Northwest Georgia region CEDS (2012), Dalton Community Incubator Assessment (2011), Dalton Area Workforce Development Assessment (2013), and Thrive 2055 (tri-state strategic plan, on-going). The team collected 38 pieces of data from sources including the US Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Patent and Trademark Office, EMSI, Georgia Department of Economic Development, and Georgia Power Resource Center. The team reviewed (and continually monitored) market research from trade associations including Floor Covering Weekly, American Floor Covering Alliance, and National Floor Trends.

Best Practice Research

Georgia Tech also conducted best practice research for bricks-and-mortar solutions in advanced manufacturing innovation. While the IMCP project provides a general framework for implementation, growth can be accelerated if led by context-specific best practices.



NOVEMBER 2014

13

Georgia Tech conducted a thorough literature review and found three best practice examples of cluster-based strategies in the U.S. that verify the six investment elements that form the comprehensive industrial ecosystem. Not only do these best practices provide new economic opportunities to their local communities, such as reducing unemployment, but they also increase the skills of the workforce and the competitiveness of existing industries in the communities in which they are located.

These practices were reviewed according to several criteria:

• The ability of the practice to be replicated;

• Evidence of a current program with measurable outcomes; and

• The interconnection and synergy across the six investment elements of the ecosystem.

The best practices reviewed include the Wright Center for Photovoltaics Innovation and Commercialization (Toledo, Ohio), the Aviation Business Park (Oshkosh, Wisconsin), and the Clemson University International Center for Automotive Research (Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina). The Wright Center for Photovoltaics Innovation and Commercialization (PVIC) is an Ohio-based world class technology platform employing second and third generation PV materials tailored for application in clean solar electricity generation, and collaboration between University of Toledo, Ohio State University and Bowling Green State University. The City of Oshkosh, the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh and Chamco Inc. are developing an aviation-focused industrial park and business accelerator at Wittman Regional Airport to help early-stage companies and entrepreneurs. The Clemson University International Center for Automotive Research (CU-ICAR) is an advanced tech research campus for research and training high-skilled positions in the automotive industry.

The Wright Center for Photovoltaics (PVIC)

The University of Toledo provides research support, technical workforce, and federal funding for complementary solar energy research initiatives at PVIC. Since 2007, the Wright Center has grown to 25 core companies, employing over 3,200 in the photovoltaic (PV) industry. With university and state investment, the economic benefits to the state of Ohio have resulted in new jobs with average annual salaries of $55,350, nearly $30 million in industry, university and other cost share investment, and almost $19 million in federal research grants.

Aviation Business Park

The $10 million invested to form the Aviation Business Park in Osh Kosh, Wisconsin includes a business accelerator that UW-Oshkosh is planning to have as Aviation Business Park’s anchor tenant. The University of Wisconsin Extension estimated that an Aviation Business Park could create up to 1000 direct jobs, 600 indirect jobs, and $343M in additional annual economic activity in the county. Aviation programs at Fox Valley Technical College (FVTC) in Oshkosh include associate degrees in aircraft electronics and aeronautic pilot training, and a technical diploma in airframe and power plant mechanics. Collectively the programs enroll 100 students. Activities like Aeroinnovate, an initiative for aero-entrepreneurs to connect with companies and bring aviation-related products to market enhance the program. With 100% placement, most these graduates are retained locally in competitive-paying positions.

Clemson University International Center for Automotive Research (CU-ICAR)

CU-ICAR grew out of a need for engineering capability in the state to support a key sector, automotive engineering. The state of South Carolina matched industry investment in ICAR, and created the enabling legislation, the Research Infrastructure Act, to allow the state match donations to university, including in-kind equipment. This proved a win-win-win for the state, university, and industry (and everyone had “skin in the game”). ICAR has attracted 20 international automotive companies to its campus. Clemson University professors and graduate students are routinely engaged in industry research. Clemson’s focus is on post-grad, they recently announced a partnership with Greenville Technical College to build a Center for Manufacturing Innovation at ICAR, which



NOVEMBER 2014

14

will provide undergraduate degree, workforce training, and certificate programs to meet the more immediate needs of automotive manufacturers in the region.

Key takeaways from the best practice review indicate that collaboration between university/technical colleges and industry accelerates job growth and cluster strength. Industry-specific degree programs are created with the needs of industry to produce a technologically capable labor force. Finally, this best practice research yields that the collocation of equipment, research, entrepreneurs/growing companies creates the synergy that is essential to the health of the cluster, and ensuring a sustainable manufacturing community.

Ideation Session

Figure 1: “Wordle” Created by Ideation Session.

Following the review of recent initiatives and completion of the bulk of the data collection task, the project team presented to the community on January 8th 2014, inviting the core group and a larger swath of the manufacturing and education community in the Northwest Georgia region to participate in an “ideation workshop” facilitated by Georgia Tech’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership (GaMEP). Representatives from education, industry, workforce development, local government, chambers of commerce, industrial development authorities, regional organizations, and economic development were in attendance. This ideation workshop was designed to solicit feedback and new ideas for creating innovation, ideas that address a specific problem – such as training a workforce with the skills necessary to fill existing and future jobs, and creating advanced manufacturing opportunities within the scope of EDA’s six key investment elements necessary for vibrant and cohesive industrial ecosystems.

The 40 attendees were seated at round tables in small groups, and asked to write down ideas tied to a specific aspect of industry in the region that were perceived as a problem. After those ideas were generated, the attendees were asked to discuss the potential benefits and threats to each of those ideas and discuss them with the group.

A majority of the ideas were focused on workforce/education/training (46 percent of responses), followed closely by industry collaboration (33 percent), and marketing (28 percent). The benefits of these ideas addressed 1) current and future industry needs; 2) the workforce skill set; 3) community engagement and the image of manufacturing; 4) investment and funding issues; 5) industry collaboration; 6) employee attraction and retention; and 7) sustainability and innovation. These ideas confirmed some of the research and data collection compiled by the project team, and provided insight into the stakeholder and partner interviews.

Interviews

While the goal of this project was to create an advanced manufacturing strategic plan, the project team and stakeholders believed that the plan should be tied to a tangible result. The result should be a something on which industry can come together, where innovation can propel the floor covering industry forward, where the



NOVEMBER 2014

15

floor covering cluster can be provided the opportunity to be strengthened in the state, and where advanced manufacturing jobs grow in the region.

Over a two-day period in the Northwest Georgia region, the project team held 22 in-person interviews with manufacturers and suppliers.1 Following the in-person interviews, the project team conducted another 14 interviews via phone. The project team also reached out to those state and regional partners who work closely with industry in the region, and Georgia Tech conducted interviews with 28 partners in May 2014. In sum, 64 interviews were conducted with internal and external stakeholders in the Northwest Georgia region. Interviewees were identified via the NWGRC, the GaMEP northwest region representative, the Greater Dalton Chamber of Commerce, meeting attendees, and county economic development offices in the region. The results of all of the interviews were analyzed and presented at the May 29th visioning meeting. A complete analysis of the interview process can be found in Appendix B.

Georgia Tech also used surveys from 75 manufacturers in the Northwest Georgia region via the 2014 Georgia Manufacturing Survey (http://www.gms-ei2.org) to gain additional insight into the manufacturing perspective, further informing the project.

Visioning

On May 29, 2014, the project team held a workshop to define the Vision and Mission for the Advanced Manufacturing Strategy at the Northwest Georgia College and Career Academy. Led by Georgia Tech and facilitated by the GaMEP, the workshop was an open and interactive dialogue, designed to bring the community to consensus about the direction of advanced manufacturing in the region. Participants were asked to identify the key elements found in the most successful advanced manufacturing communities, and the goals that could be used to achieve a similar result in Northwest Georgia. The Vision and Mission statements for this strategy can be found in the Advanced Manufacturing Strategy Recommendations section.

Integrated Regional Planning and Action Steps

At the conclusion of the Advanced Manufacturing Strategy, the NWGRC will develop an action-based implementation plan using the strategy results, which will combine regional planning, the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS), and Workforce Investment plan action items to address the identified needs of industry in the region. This will allow the NWGRC to integrate workforce development, planning, and community and economic development activities including regional and local action plans, transportation, targeted investments, grant application and technical assistance, and other activities and resources that support the known needs of manufacturers in the region, particularly small and medium sized manufacturers in the floor covering cluster.

1 Interviews were held at the Calhoun Convention Center in Calhoun, Georgia from February 26th – 27th, 2014.



NOVEMBER 2014

16

COMMUNITY PROFILEUnderstanding the dynamics of the Northwest Georgia community is an important first step in the strategic planning process. This section provides an introduction to the demographic characteristics of the Northwest Georgia region. Information about the region’s demographics, educational levels, employment details, and wages are compared to averages for the state, the southeast, and the nation.

This section provides an introduction to the employment and occupational characteristics of the Northwest Georgia region. Highlights from this section include:

• The manufacturing sector experienced a 27 percent decline in employment from 2002 to 2012.

• The floor covering industry comprised 13.6 percent of total jobs located in the region in 2012.

• Per capita income and average annual pay for manufacturing jobs was less than the average found in the southeast and the US.

• The region’s population in 2010 increased approximately 24 percent since 2000. The majority of the population is between the ages of 35-64.

• As of 2012, the unemployment rate in Northwest Georgia was over 11 percent, which is higher than that of the state, southeast, or US.

• While manufacturing and the floor covering industry continue to recover the jobs lost during the Great Recession, wages have not yet recovered. The region’s workforce is traveling further for employment, but still staying within 25 miles of home. Data suggests that the region’s upcoming workforce is more educated, but opting for careers in health or food service instead of manufacturing (coming out of a technical degree program).

DemographicsThis section provides an overview of the region’s demographic characteristics, including population, race, ethnicity, and age. Like much of Georgia, the region experienced consistent growth in people and jobs in the 1990s. However, as a result of the economic decline, the in-migration of people slowed dramatically, and the demographic composition of the county has changed dramatically since the early 1990s.

Figure 2: Population Growth Rate Over Prior Decade

Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Census Bureau, Tables: STF1:T1 (1980), STF1:P1 (1990), SF1:P1 (2000, 2010)

Population

Over the last thirty years, the population of the Northwest Georgia region has steadily increased, following state trends, with the greatest period of growth occurring between 1990 and 2000, when the region increased its population over 27% (Figure 2). Of the region, Paulding County has shown the greatest growth, increasing its population size by nearly 450% over the last three decades.



NOVEMBER 2014

17

Table 1: Total Population (1980 - 2010)

Geography 1980 1990 2000 2010 Change 1980 - 2010

Change 2000 - 2010

Georgia 5,463,105 6,478,216 8,186,453 9,687,653 77% 18%

WIA (15-County) 478,167 548,220 697,410 863,217 81% 24%Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Census Bureau, Tables: STF1:T1 (1980), STF1:P1 (1990), SF1:P1 (2000, 2010)

Age and Sex Distribution

As of the 2010 U.S. Census, the greatest percentage of population in the Northwest Georgia region falls into the 35-64 year age group. Over the last three decades, the 35-64 year age group, and 65 and over age group, have shown the greatest percentage of growth, both regionally and across the state.

Table 2: Age Distribution (1980-2010)

Geography 1980 1990 2000 2010Georgia Under 18 30% 27% 27% 26%

18 to 34 30% 30% 26% 24%35 to 64 30% 34% 38% 40%65 and over 9% 10% 10% 11%

WIA (15-County) Under 18 30% 26% 26% 26%18 to 34 27% 27% 24% 21%35 to 64 32% 35% 38% 41%65 and over 11% 12% 12% 13%

Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Census Bureau, Table: STF1:T11 (1980), STF1:P11 (1990), SF1:P12 (2000, 2010)

Figure 3: Comparative Age by Sex Distribution (2010)

Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Census Bureau, Table: STF1:T11 (1980), STF1:P11 (1990), SF1:P12 (2000, 2010)

The distribution of sex by age in Figure 3 shows that the region generally follows the distribution of the state, but there are slightly more males and females over 65 in the region than in the state.



NOVEMBER 2014

18

Race and Ethnicity

Since 1980, the percentage of white residents in the region has declined, while Black or African American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, and residents identifying as “some other race” (including those identifying themselves as Latino or Hispanic) have experienced significant growth. The greatest percentage of growth occurred between 1990 and 2000 in those residents identifying as “some other race,” a trend that holds true for the state as well.

Table 3: Decade-Over-Decade Change in Racial Composition

Geography 1990 2000 2010Georgia White 17% 16% 9%

Black or African American 19% 35% 26%American Indian/Alaskan Native

75% 63% 48%

Asian/Pacific Islander 210% 134% 81%Some Other Race 126% 633% 92%

WIA (15-County) White 15% 22% 17%Black or African American 7% 27% 63%American Indian/Alaskan Native

120% 83% 48%

Asian/Pacific Islander 123% 139% 98%Some Other Race 277% 984% 99%


Figure 4: Race Distribution, 1980 - 2010


Table 4 shows that the Hispanic or Latino population (of any race) of the region has also grown steadily over the last three decades, experiencing the greatest growth from 1990 to 2000. The Hispanic or Latino population composition is greater in the region than in the state, as shown in Figure 5. As of the 2010 U.S. Census, nearly 10% of the resident population identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino. The surge in Hispanic population in the region from 1990 to 2000 can be attributed to immigration of workers from Mexico to fill jobs in the carpet mills, which were undergoing tremendous growth during that period.



NOVEMBER 2014

19

Table 4: Decade-Over-Decade Hispanic or Latino Population Growth

Geography 1990 2000 2010Georgia 78% 300% 96%WIA (15-County) 84% 611% 106%Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Census Bureau, Tables: STF1:T8 (1980), STF1:P9 (1990), SF1:P8 (2000),

SF1:P4 (2010)


Figure 5: Hispanic or Latino Population, 1980 - 2010

Education

Figure 6: School Enrollment, 1980-2010

Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Census Bureau, Tables: STF3:T48, STF3:T49 (1980), STF3:P54 (1990), SF3:PCT23 (2000); American Community Survey, Tables: B14004 (2006-2010)

School Enrollment

Figure 6 shows that both across the state and the region, school enrollment for the population above three years of age decreased from its high in 1980 to a low in 1990. Though still below 1980 enrollment counts, since 1990, the school enrollment numbers have been slowly rebounding, both in the region and across the state.

Graduation Rates

Table 5 shows the overall public school graduation rates in the region



NOVEMBER 2014

20

by county for 2012. The region had nearly 9,000 public school graduates, with Paulding (1,698), Whitfield (1,103), and Bartow (1,044) counties producing the greatest number of graduates.

Table 5: Public School Graduation Rates, 2012

County Graduates County Graduates County GraduatesBartow 1,044 Floyd 963 Paulding 1,698Catoosa 762 Gilmer 225 Pickens 265Chattooga 257 Gordon 590 Polk 336Dade 146 Haralson 319 Walker 619Fannin 184 Murray 458 Whitfield 1,103WIA (15-County) Total 8,969Source: Northwest Georgia Regional Commission Area Labor Profile, derived from 2012 Georgia Independent School

Association

Educational Attainment Figure 7: WIA (15-County) Educational Attainment

Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Census Bureau, Tables: STF3:P57 (1990), SF3:P37 (2000); American Community Survey, Tables: B15002 (2006-2010)

Over the last 20 years in the region, the number of students completing high school and continuing on to earn advanced degrees has steadily increased. This is especially notable among those students receiving bachelor’s degrees, up from 16.9 percent in 1990 to 26 percent in 2010.

Figure 8: School Dropout Rates for the Population

Source: Social Explorer, Tables Derived from Decennial Census and American Community Survey, SE:T35 (1980), SE:T24 (1990), SE:T59 (2000), SE:T30 (2010)

Dropout Rates

Since 1980, the Northwest Georgia region has experienced a decline in the school dropout rate among the student population, ages 16 to 19 years. The greatest decline occurred during the last decade, with dropout rates falling by nearly 10 percent. This trend is comparable to that of the state.

Post-Secondary Degrees

Table 6 shows the numbers of technical college degrees by program in 2012. The greatest percentage of growth occurred in Health Sciences, (474.8 percent increase from 2011 to 2012) followed by Food Preparation (161 percent increase from 2011 to 2012). Criminal Justice and HVAC Maintenance posted the greatest one year losses (57 percent and 30 percent respectively, from 2011 to 2012).



NOVEMBER 2014

21

Table 6: Technical College Degrees Obtained by Program (2012)

Degree 2010 2011 2012 Percent Change 2010-2011

Percent Change 2011-2012

Automobile/Automotive Mechanics Technology/Technician

2,553 3,250 3,776 27% 16%

Accounting Technology/Technician and Bookkeeping

3,298 2,931 2,335 -11% -20%

Cosmetology/Cosmetologist, General

1,381 1,900 1,619 38% -15%

Industrial Mechanics and Maintenance Technology

1,401 1,112 1,480 -21% 33%

Administrative Assistant and Secretarial Science, General

1,027 1,242 1,325 21% 7%

Child Care Provider/Assistant 428 1,379 1,241 222% -10%Licensed Practical/Vocational Nurse Training

1,285 1,134 1,177 -12% 4%

Welding Technology/Welder 1,509 1,024 1,035 -32% 1%Early Childhood Education and Teaching

1,328 1,361 1,028 3% -25%

Allied Health and Medical Assisting Services, Other

215 694 956 223% 38%

Food Preparation/Professional Cooking/Kitchen Assistant

281 324 846 15% 161%

Truck and Bus Driver/Commercial Vehicle Operator and Instructor

1,639 1,115 804 -32% -28%

Heating, Air Conditioning, Ventilation and Refrigeration Maintenance Technology

602 1,108 778 84% -30%

Computer Systems Networking and Telecommunications

1,078 803 764 -26% -5%

Business Administration and Management, General

1,386 639 751 -54% 18%

Criminal Justice/Safety Studies 1,014 1,700 738 68% -57%Health Services/Allied Health/Health Sciences, General

98 127 730 30% 475%

Fire Science/Fire-fighting 437 356 695 -19% 95%Computer Installation and Repair Technology/Technician

696 437 637 -37% 46%

Medical Office Assistant/Specialist

674 544 633 -19% 16%

Source: Northwest Georgia Regional Commission Area Labor Profile derived from Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System data.



NOVEMBER 2014

22

Figure 9: Unemployment Rate for Civilian Population, Age 16 and Over, 2012

Source: Social Explorer, American Community Survey, SE:T37-48 (2010)

Unemployment

Figure 10: Percentage of Unemployment by Sex, 2012


Figure 11: Percentage of Unemployment by Race and Ethnicity, 2012


As of 2012, the unemployment rate of the Northwest Georgia region is greater than that of the state, the 10-state Southeast Region, and the nation, eclipsing the national rate by two percentage points.

In 2012, 11.7 percent of the male population in Northwest Georgia were unemployed, as compared with 10.9 percent of the female population, following the trend seen throughout the nation, region, and state. When looking at the relationship between unemployment and race and ethnicity for 2012, the highest rates of unemployment occurred among those identifying as Black or African American and Two or More Races, with 16.4 percent of those populations experiencing unemployment, while those identifying as Asian had the lowest rate of unemployment, with just 5.5 percent.



NOVEMBER 2014

23

Commuting PatternsIn 2011, the majority of the working population was able to work within 25 miles of their home. Over one-third of the working population in the region worked within 10 miles of their home. From 2002 to 2011, the percentage of the working population who traveled 10 miles or less from home to work declined, while those who traveled further distances increased, with the largest increase occurring among those who had to drive 25 to 50 miles for work. These workers primarily worked east/southeast of the community, as shown in Figure 12.

Table 7: Home to Work Distance for Northwest Georgia WIA

2002 2011 Change 2002-2011Count Share Count Share

Total All Jobs 292,810 100% 316,308 100%Less than 10 miles 126,590 43.2% 107,699 34.0% -9.2%10 to 24 miles 83,303 28.4% 97,337 30.8% 2.4%25 to 50 miles 44,325 15.1% 59,911 18.9% 3.8%Greater than 50 miles 38,592 13.2% 51,361 16.2% 3.0%Table 7 and Figure 12 Source: U.S. Census OnTheMap

Figure 12: Job Counts for All Workers by Distance/Direction, 2002, 2011

EmploymentTable 8 shows that in 2012, there were 15,393 business establishments in the Northwest Georgia region that accounted for a total of 240,513 jobs. From 2002 to 2012, the number of jobs in the region fell by more than 5 percent. During that same span of time, the number of establishments in the region grew by more than 8 percent. This suggests that businesses in the region have had to do more with less. Further, private sector jobs, which dropped by 7.1 percent, were more adversely affected by the economic downturn than the public sector, which experienced a small bump up in jobs (3.6 percent).



NOVEMBER 2014

24

Table 8: Total Employment and Establishments in the Northwest Georgia Region

Total Employment Total EstablishmentsSector 2002 2007 2012 Change

2002 - 20122002 2007 2012 Change

2000 - 2012Private Sector 215,321 231,480 200,131 -7.1% 13,466 14,997 14,591 8.5%Public Sector 38,980 42,895 40,382 3.6% 782 827 802 2.6%Unclassified -industry not assigned

456 184 668 46.5% 162 198 721 345.1%

Total 254,302 274,371 240,513 -5.4% 14,228 15,824 15,393 8.2%Source: Georgia Department of Labor (GDOL)

Manufacturing Employment

Since 2002, the loss of jobs was not equal across all major employment sectors. Manufacturing, which accounted for nearly 25 percent of total employment in 2012, was one of the hardest hit. Table 9 depicts how manufacturing employment in the Northwest Georgia region has changed over time, and also provides a comparison to the southeast U.S. and the United States as a whole. From 2002 to 2012, the region experienced a 27 percent decline in manufacturing sector – greater than both the southeast US and the nation as a whole, which fell by 24.8 percent and 21.7 percent, respectively.

Table 9: Northwest Georgia Region’s Employment in Manufacturing Subsectors

Manufacturing Subsectors

2002 2007 2012 Net Change

from 2002 to

2012

% Change

from 2002 to

2012

2012 Share of Manufacturing

Apparel 619 198 84 -535 -86.4% 0%Beverage and Tobacco Product

872 752 607 -265 -30.4% 1%

Chemical 2,753 2,867 2,888 135 4.9% 5%Computer and Electronic Product

266 399 520 254 95.5% 1%

Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component

2,884 * * * * *

Fabricated Metal Product 2,070 2,522 1,851 -219 -10.6% 3%Food 5,136 5,051 3,456 -1,680 -32.7% 6%Furniture and Related Product

2,208 2,508 1,693 -515 -23.3% 3%

Leather and Allied Product 15 * * * * *Machinery 1,735 1,788 1,559 -176 -10.1% 3%Miscellaneous 361 625 664 303 83.9% 1%Nonmetallic Mineral Product

1,223 1,482 754 -469 -38.3% 1%

Paper 1,940 777 1,202 -738 -38.0% 2%Petroleum and Coal Products

19 35 40 21 110.5% 0%

*Data not Available, Source: GDOL



NOVEMBER 2014

25

Manufacturing Subsectors

2002 2007 2012 Net Change

from 2002 to

2012

% Change

from 2002 to

2012

2012 Share of Manufacturing

Plastics and Rubber Products

2,950 3,124 4,152 1,202 40.7% 7%

Primary Metal 1,370 1,702 1,284 -86 -6.3% 2%Printing and Related Support Activities

2,476 2,422 1,907 -569 -23.0% 3%

Textile Mills 14,575 11,299 8,914 -5,661 -38.8% 15%Textile Product Mills 33,599 29,897 21,029 -12,570 -37.4% 36%Transportation Equipment 2,496 4,954 3,835 1,339 53.6% 7%Wood Product 1,299 1,369 1,010 -289 -22.2% 2%Total Manufacturing 80,859 75,748 58,855 -22,004 -27.2% 100%*Data not Available, Source: GDOL

Employment in the “Floor Covering Cluster”

Within the manufacturing sector, 13 of the 19 subsectors (with available data) decreased from 2002 to 2012. Textile Mills and Textile Product Mills, which make up part of the region’s floor covering industry cluster, posted the largest net declines of all the manufacturing subsectors, falling 38.8 and 37.4 percent, respectively. Combined, these two subsectors lost over 18,000 jobs. This is important because these two sectors are also the backbone of the manufacturing industry in the region encompassing more than 50 percent of employment in the region’s manufacturing sector.

For the purposes of this report, the floor covering industry cluster is defined as carpet and rug, resilient, wood, ceramic, and floor tile manufacturing.2 The Textile Cluster, as defined by the Porter Cluster Mapping Project, provided an initial base of industries to include, and we expanded that cluster definition to capture resilient floor covering manufacturing (NAICS Other Plastics Product Manufacturing), wood flooring manufacturing (NAICS 32191 Millwork), and ceramic wall and floor tile manufacturing (NAICS 32712 Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing). Figure

2 The following five-digit NAICS were used to define the floor covering industry: 31311 Fiber, Yarn and Thread Mills, 31321 Broadwoven Fabric Mills, 31322 Narrow Fabric Mills and Schiffli Machine Embroidery, 31323 Nonwoven Fabric Mills, 31331 Textile and Fabric Finishing Mills, 31411 Carpet and Rug Mills, 31499 All Other Textile Product Mills, 32191 Millwork, 32522 Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing, 32619 Other Plastics Product Manufacturing, 32712 Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing, 33324 Industrial Machinery Manufacturing, and 33999 All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing

Figure 13: Northwest Georgia Floor Covering Employment

Source: GDOL



NOVEMBER 2014

26

13 shows that in 2012, there were 32,801 jobs in the floor covering industry cluster in the region, a decrease of 33.6 percent from 2002 to 2012. This has a significant effect on the Northwest Georgia region’s economy since the floor covering industry cluster comprised 13.6 percent of total jobs located in the region in 2012.

Location Quotients (LQs) are used to show the competitive advantage (using employment concentrations) of an industry in one area compared to another area. In other words, LQs are used to identify specializations in the local economy. Generally, a LQ that is greater than 1.0 shows that an industry has a greater share of the local area employment than the U.S.

Figure 14 presents an analysis of the growth in the floor covering industry cluster. The horizontal axis plots the change in the location quotient (LQ) from 2002 to 2012, and the vertical axis plots each industry’s LQ in 2012. The size of the bubble relates to the size of the industry’s employment. Industries moving up and away from the origin are “standouts” that distinguish the local economy. Larger industries (larger bubbles) in this quadrant (Carpet and Rug Mills and Fiber, Yarn, and Thread Mills) are both important and high-performing and have a potential for increasing workforce demand.

Figure 14: Floor Covering Industry Cluster Growth Analysis

Source: GDOL

Employment Concentration

Table 10 shows the LQs for each of the industries that comprise the floor covering sector Key Technology or Supply Chain (KTS) and their national rank using the IMCP Census Data Tool (at the four-digit NAICS level). The industries in bold indicate that the industry is in the top one-third in the nation. All but one five-digit level NAICS-coded industry has a LQ less than 1.0. With an LQ of 298.7 in 2012, the region clearly has a specialization in the floor covering industry (NAICS 31411 Carpet and Rug Mills).



NOVEMBER 2014

27

Table 10: Floor Covering Industry Cluster KTS National Rank

5-DigitNAICS NAICS Title LQ

(2012)National

Rank31311 Fiber, Yarn, and Thread Mills 81.1 231321 Broadwoven Fabric Mills 40.6 431322 Narrow Fabric Mills and Schiffli Machine Embroidery 1.4 431323 Nonwoven Fabric Mills 8.5 431331 Textile and Fabric Finishing Mills 18.8 431411 Carpet and Rug Mills 298.7 131499 All Other Textile Product Mills 4.4 232191 Millwork 1.5 2132522 Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing 8.0 1332619 Other Plastics Product Manufacturing 2.7 1632712 Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing 2.9 633324 Industrial Machinery Manufacturing 1.9 2433999 All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing 0.7 36

Floor covering Industry AVERAGE 36.3

Income The region’s per capita income is calculated by dividing the personal income of the region’s residents by the region’s population. In 2012, per capita income in the region was $31,277, an increase of 3.6 percent from the previous year (not adjusted for inflation). While a respectable increase, the region still lags behind the Southeast US and the U.S., which posted per capita income levels at $38,163 and $43,735 in 2012 (Figure 15).

Figure 15: Per Capita Income

Note: Data not adjusted for inflation. Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)



NOVEMBER 2014

28

WagesManufacturing Wages

Figure 16 shows how average annual pay for manufacturing jobs has changed over time in the Northwest Georgia region, the Southeast US and the U.S. Manufacturing pay in the region is growing, but at a slower pace compared to the Southeast and the U.S. From 2002 to 2012, wages for manufacturing jobs in the region grew by 31 percent (not adjusted for inflation), while the Southeast grew by 39 percent and the U.S. grew by 37 percent.

Figure 16: Average Annual Pay for Manufacturing Jobs

Source: Quarterly Census of Employment & Wages, BLS, and GDOL

Figure 17: Average Annual Pay for Northwest Georgia Floor Covering Jobs

Source: GDOL

Floor Covering Wages

Average annual pay for floor covering jobs in the region are shown in Figure 17. In 2012, the wages for floor covering jobs in the region was $38,784. While this is an increase from the $29,501 reported in 2002, it still falls short compared to the U.S.

Manufacturing OutlookNorthwest Georgia continues to rebound from the Great Recession, due in part to in-migration, the recovery of the housing sector, and the ability of the floor covering industry to adjust its product offerings



NOVEMBER 2014

29

quickly in response to the changing needs of its customers. If job announcements in 2013 and 2014 are any indication, the region will continue to see a modest rise in manufacturing-related jobs, albeit with different skills required than manufacturing jobs required 10 years ago.

What’s the secret to facilitating steady job creation going forward? A recent article in the Georgia Trend indicates that “to become a [region] where manufacturing activity concentrates, Georgia must develop a much better educated and more highly skilled blue-collar workforce and become a more fertile ground for innovative productivity-enhancing technologies.”3 This statement validates the emphasis placed on workforce development and innovation during the interviews with manufacturers.

WORKFORCE SKILLS/NEEDS ASSESSMENTFor a region to attract and retain businesses, workforce development must provide a consistent pipeline of educated, trained, and “work ready” employees. For the demand and supply sides of an economy to balance, employers’ needs must be communicated to partners in both education and local government, and potential employees must have access to the appropriate training and education. This section details the state of the Northwest Georgia region’s workforce, including job openings; top knowledge requirements; most desired hard and soft skills; occupational projections; recent industry announcements; forecasted direct and indirect job creation; educational enrollment; workforce training programs; workforce gaps; and innovation indicators.

Highlights from this section include:

• The most in-demand occupations in the region are: recycling and reclamation workers; textile winding, twisting, and drawing out machinists; extruding and forming machinist; industrial truck and tractor operators; and first-line supervisors of production and operations.

• A job opening snapshot revealed that top knowledge requirements across openings include: production and processing; English language; mechanical, customer and personal service; and administration and management.

• Occupational projections forecast that interior designers, computer-controlled machine tool operators, computer system analysts and vehicle and equipment cleaners will either remain stable or experience job growth in both the floor covering industry and across all occupations.

• Occupations projected to increase employment in both the floor covering industry and across all occupations include interior designers, computer-controlled machine tool operators, computer system analysts, and vehicle and equipment cleaners.

• Industry announcements from 2013 to 2014 estimate the job creation of more than 4,000 jobs with an estimated investment of more than one billion dollars in the region. Over half of these job projections are focused on the floor covering industry.

• Between 2000 and 2011, patents within the “textile technologies” field amounted to over 70 percent of total technology patents within the Dalton MSA.

• Research suggests that there is high demand for workers in the floor covering industry with a relatively high level of analytical competence. While a highly skilled workforce and the industry’s concentration in the region provide fertile ground for innovation activity, both workforce skill level and patent activity could be benefit from a talent and innovation pipeline with a research university.

3 “Economy: The 2014 Georgia Outlook.” Georgia Trend online: http://www.georgiatrend.com/December-2013/Economy-The-2014-Georgia-Outlook/



NOVEMBER 2014

30

Job Openings SnapshotA snapshot of the current occupational opportunities in the floor covering industry was collected in May 2014, revealing 626 open positions at major floor covering manufacturing firms in the region. Openings were obtained from the employment search website, Randstad, and the job boards of individual regional employers, including the region’s most prominent floor covering manufacturers: Beaulieu, Engineered Floors, IVC Group, J+J Flooring Group, Mohawk, and Shaw. These openings represent a “snapshot” of the industry’s needs, and do not take into account proposed/future jobs, such as industry announcements. Table 11 lists the top occupations, by current job openings advertised.

Table 11: Top 15 Occupations by Current Job Openings Advertised, May 2014

SOC Code SOC Description Openings51-9199.01 Recycling and Reclamation Workers 7051-6064 Textile Winding, Twisting, and Drawing Out Machine Setters, Operators, and

Tenders68

51-6063 Textile Knitting and Weaving Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders 6551-6091 Extruding and Forming Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Synthetic

and Glass Fibers31

53-7051 Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators 3051-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Production and Operating Workers 2453-3032 Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers 2011-2022 Sales Managers 1841-4012 Sales Representatives 1749-9041 Industrial Machinery Mechanics 1517-3023.03 Electrical Engineering Technicians 1451-4191 Heat Treating Equipment Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and

Plastic12

51-9199 Production Workers, All Other 1151-9061 Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers 1149-9043 Maintenance Workers, Machinery 11

Top Occupational Openings 417

Current openings were assigned Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system codes based on their job descriptions. Using the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) of the US Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration (USDOL/ETA), an estimate of the skills required, as well as projected national growth and earnings potential was collected.

Requirements for Current Position Openings4

For each occupational code listed above, information was gathered regarding the knowledge, skills, abilities, work activities and work styles. The results were aggregated to determine which requirements were most commonly in demand across all occupational codes analyzed.

Knowledge

Figure 18 lists the top knowledge requirements that were listed across the selected occupations. Of the occupations analyzed, 53.3 percent required production and processing and English language knowledge, while another 46.7 percent required mechanical knowledge. Over a third of the occupations analyzed required

4 Using identified occupations in Table 11 as source information from O*NET.



NOVEMBER 2014

31

customer and personal service (40 percent); administration and management (40 percent); and mathematics knowledge (33.3 percent).

Figure 18: Top Knowledge Requirements

Skills

Figure 19 below lists the most common skills requirements that were listed across the top occupations. Of the occupations analyzed, 80 percent required active listening skills, while another 73.3 percent required operation monitoring and critical thinking skills. Two-thirds of the occupations analyzed required monitoring skills, while 60 percent required operation and control skills.

Figure 19: Top Skills Required

Ability Level

Abilities required by the occupations analyzed generally reflect both intellectual and physical abilities. As shown in Figure 20 problem sensitivity (the ability to recognize problems) was required by 80 percent of the occupations. Two-thirds of the occupations analyzed required near vision, while over half of the occupations



NOVEMBER 2014

32

(53.3 percent) required oral expression, oral comprehension, manual dexterity, finger dexterity, and control precision abilities.

Figure 20: Top Abilities Required

Work Activities

Work activities requirements include the primary tasks of an employee. Figure 21 illustrates that over 90 percent of the occupations required communication with supervisors, peers, or subordinates as a primary work activity. Also ranking high among work activities was “getting information” (86.7 percent) and “identifying objects, actions, and events” (80 percent). Overall, the primary work activities identified among the top occupations reflected communication, problem solving activities, as well as more technical and physical activities.

Figure 21: Top Work Activities Required

Work Styles

Work styles requirements include those attributes more generally known as “soft skills.” Dependability and attention to detail rank highest among the occupations analyzed, as shown in Figure 22, with 86.7 percent



NOVEMBER 2014

33

of occupations listing them as a primary requirements. This is followed by integrity and cooperation (80 percent); independence (73.3 percent); stress tolerance, self-control, and initiative (66.7 percent), persistence (60 percent) and adaptability/flexibility (53.3 percent).

Figure 22: Top Work Styles Required

Occupational ProjectionsWhile current openings and job announcements present a snapshot of what is happening “on the ground” in the region, occupational projections provided by the Georgia Department of Economic Development offer an appraisal of future (2018) regional opportunities for growth.

Matching “All Occupations” with “Floor Covering (Carpet) Occupations”

The table below highlights shared opportunities for growth among all occupations and carpet occupations. The occupations in Table 12 are listed by projected growth across all occupations, with those occupations highlighted in orange representing occupations that will remaining stable or experience growth, across both all occupations and carpet occupations. Though not all occupations will experience growth within carpet occupations, they may offer significant growth opportunities among all occupations in the region. For example, market research analysts and marketing specialists are forecasted to grow by 27 percent from 2013 to 2018 across all occupations, while across carpet occupations, these occupations are expected to decline by 3 percent. However, there are also opportunities for shared growth, such as computer-controlled machine tool operators (metal and plastic) which are projected to experience significant growth across both all occupations (24 percent) and carpet occupations (25 percent).



NOVEMBER 2014

34

Table 12: Forecasted Stable or Growing Occupations (2013 - 2018, All Occupations and Carpet Occupations Combined)

Forecasted Changes in

Employment (2013-2018)

Impacts of Industry Announcements

SOC Code

Description AllOcc

CarpetOcc

Original Initial Direct Indirect Induced

13-1161 Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists

27.0% -3.0% 517 5 1 0 1

27-1025 Interior Designers 24.0% 9.0% 254 6 0 0 051-4011 Computer-

Controlled Machine Tool Operators, Metal and Plastic

24.0% 25.0% 127 0 0 0 0

47-4099 Construction and Related Workers, All Other

21.0% -- 78 2 0 0 0

15-1121 Computer Systems Analysts

20.0% 0.0% 573 2 0 0 1

41-1012 First-Line Supervisors of Non-Retail Sales Workers

19.0% -13.0% 1638 3 6 1 3

51-4111 Tool and Die Makers

17.0% -- 84 0 0 0 0

49-9099 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Workers, All Other

16.0% -10.0% 584 14 1 0 1

43-3021 Billing and Posting Clerks

15.0% -21.0% 905 8 1 0 3

49-9021 Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration Mechanics and Installers

15.0% -6.0% 827 1 1 0 3

53-7061 Cleaners of Vehicles and Equipment

15.0% 0.0% 595 1 1 0 2

Reflects occupations that are forecasted to remain stable or grow both across all occupations, and the carpeting industry.



NOVEMBER 2014

35

Table 13 highlights those opportunities where occupational growth is expected to be greater among carpet occupations than across all occupations.

Table 13: Forecasted Occupations That Fare Better in the Carpet Industry Than Across All Occupations, 2013 - 2018




SOCCode

Description AllOcc

CarpetOcc


51-4011 Computer-Controlled Machine Tool Operators, Metal and Plastic

24.0% 25.0% 127 0 0 0 0

51-4081 Multiple Machine Tool Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic

1.0% 11.0% 220 0 0 0 0

51-4072 Molding, Coremaking, and Casting Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic

-3.0% 9.0% 344 0 0 0 0

51-2091 Fiberglass Laminators and Fabricators

9.0% 9.0% 37 0 0 0 0

51-4021 Extruding and Drawing Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic

1.0% 7.0% 228 0 1 0 0

51-4031 Cutting, Punching, and Press Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic

0.0% 3.0% 310 1 0 0 0

51-9195 Molders, Shapers, and Casters, Except Metal and Plastic

-6.0% 0.0% 169 3 0 0 0

Industry AnnouncementsTo get a broader picture of the employment opportunities in the region, the team also collected information regarding new location and expansion announcements from FY 2013 through FY 2015. These announcements,



NOVEMBER 2014

36

as shown in Table 14, include an automotive manufacturer, a property preservation firm, and floor covering manufacturers and suppliers. Engineered Floors, a floor covering manufacturing firm headquartered in Dalton, Georgia, offers both the highest monetary investment in the region as well as the highest number of estimated jobs to be created. Together, all announcements in the region result in the addition of $1.265 billion dollars in regional investment, and the estimated creation of 5,397 jobs. The floor covering manufacturing industry alone represents nearly 73 percent of the total regional investment represented by the announcements, and over 75 percent of the estimated job growth. These additional jobs increase the demand for a highly-skilled and trained workforce in the region in order to meet the needs of local industry.

Table 14: Northwest Georgia Industry Announcements (FY13 - FY15)

Project Title County Industry Product New/Exp.

Date Announced

Inv. ($M)

Jobs

Mattex Murray Floor Covering Carpet Backing Exp 5/8/2013 $60 200Engineered Floors

Whitfield &Murray

Floor Covering Carpet Exp 5/1/2013 $450 2000

Boyd Property Preservation

Whitfield Financial Property Preservation

Exp 3/19/13 n/a 300

Foss Manufacturing Co.

Floyd Textile Fabrics and Fibers

New 9/25/2012 $15 150

Voestalpine Metal Forming

Bartow Automotive Automotive Body Parts

New 8/15/2012 $62 222

Interroll Paulding Logistics Conveyor Systems and Components

New 7/20/2012 $10 70

Shaw Industries Group

Bartow Floor Covering Carpet tiles Exp 8/29/2013 $85 500

Mohawk Industries

Whitfield, Floyd

Floor Covering BCF twisting and heat setting

Exp 12/4/2013 $85 420

Toyo Tire Bartow Automotive Tires Exp 12/6/2013 $371 650

Orlaco Pickens Manufacturing Camera solutions

New 12/17/2013 n/a 65

IVC US Whitfield Floor Covering LVT Exp 2/3/2014 $80 200Surya Bartow

County Carpet/Floor Covering

Sales, marketing

Exp 6/5/2014 $30 200

Shaw Industries Group

Catoosa County

Floor Covering Carpet Exp. 6/23/2014 $17 70

Beaulieu International Group

Bartow County

Manufacturing Cushion Vinyl Exp. 7/14/2014 N/A 350

Source: Georgia Department of Economic Development (November 2014)



NOVEMBER 2014

37

Projected Impact of Industry AnnouncementsOriginal: The number of people em-ployed in an occupation in the region before taking into account any industry announcements.

Initial: An estimate of job creation related to the announcement’s number of estimated jobs to be created.

Direct: An estimate of the number of jobs created for suppliers as a result of the announcement.

Indirect: An estimate of the number of jobs created for suppliers’ suppliers as a result of the announcement.

Induced: An estimate of the number of “tertiary” jobs (fast food, medical, etc.) that are created due to the effect of the announcement.

The industry and occupational projections provided above provide a forecast of growth based on historical trends in the region. However, these historical trends are skewed by the economic recession, and therefore forecast slower growth than the region’s industries are experiencing. To capture a more realistic picture of the region’s recovery and projected growth, the Georgia Department of Economic Development produced an occupational analysis for the region that included the impact of the recent (2013 and 2014) industry announcements.

Using the jobs numbers given with the industry announcements, the impact of these announcements on the occupations associated with the floor covering industry were calculated. The analysis includes a list of the occupations, by SOC codes, associated with a profile of the floor covering industry. The original employment numbers in each of these occupations, and initial growth expected as a result of the impact of the announcements is given. An estimate of the number of direct, indirect, and induced positions is also estimated.

The tables below pair the previous occupational forecasts with the estimates of initial, direct, indirect, and induced employment created as a result of the industry announcements.

Original Jobs

Table 15 lists the region’s top occupations in terms of original employment numbers. Within the region, retail salespersons make up the highest number of original jobs held of the occupations analyzed. While the retail salesperson occupation is projected to decline 16 percent from 2013 to 2018 among carpet-specific occupations in the region, when looking at the forecast across all occupations in the region, retail salespersons will grow 13 percent over the same time period. This table suggests that if there is a future decline in the carpet industry among these occupations, the larger economy of the region may be able to support the transition of those employees to similar occupations within different industries.

Table 15: Greatest Number of “Original” Jobs Held in the Industry




SOCCode

Description AllOcc

CarpetOcc


41-2031 Retail Salespersons

13% -16% 10,315 18 3 1 42

41-9022 Real Estate Sales Agents

6% #N/A 7,939 0 5 2 25

41-2011 Cashiers 5% #N/A 7,693 0 2 1 3035-3021 Combined Food

Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food

22% #N/A 6,756 0 2 1 23



NOVEMBER 2014

38




SOCCode

Description AllOcc

CarpetOcc


53-3032 Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers

4% -17% 6,736 22 41 4 6

53-7062 Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand

2% -20% 6,535 112 21 3 7

37-2011 Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners

11% -13% 6,193 17 10 3 13

43-9061 Office Clerks, General

3% -20% 5,721 65 9 1 12

51-6064 Textile Winding, Twisting, and Drawing Out Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders

-8% -11% 5,704 495 149 8 0

41-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers

14% -24% 5,631 4 2 0 23

Initial Jobs

Table 16 lists the top occupations in terms of the estimated initial impact of industry announcements on jobs in these occupations. Industry announcements will produce the largest number of initial positions among textile winding, twisting, and drawing out machine setters, operators, and tenders, though employment projections saw this occupation declining both across all occupations (-8 percent) and carpet occupations (-11 percent). Overall, initial job impacts of industry announcements appeared to have the greatest effect on those occupations most closely aligned to the technical aspects of carpet manufacturing – textile workers, sewers, inspectors, and first-line supervisors – as well as those involved with the transportation and shipping of products.



NOVEMBER 2014

39

Table 16: Greatest Number of “Initial” Jobs Based on Industry Announcements




SOCCode

Description AllOcc

CarpetOcc



-8% -11% 5,704 495 149 8 0

51-6063 Textile Knitting and Weaving Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders

-23% -21% 2,715 223 18 1 0

51-6031 Sewing Machine Operators

1% -1% 2,226 213 3 0 0

51-9198 Helpers--Production Workers

-16% -19% 2,411 156 6 1 0

53-7051 Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators

-17% -23% 3,239 144 11 1 1

51-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Production and Operating Workers

-9% -16% 2,763 128 14 1 1

51-6062 Textile Cutting Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders

-27% -23% 1,302 123 8 0 0


2% -20% 6,535 112 21 3 7

51-9061 Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers

-10% -19% 2,111 96 11 1 1

53-7064 Packers and Packagers, Hand

-6% -13% 2,556 90 8 1 3



NOVEMBER 2014

40

Direct Jobs

As shown in Table 17, industry announcements will also produce the largest number of direct (supplier) positions among textile winding, twisting, and drawing out machine setters, operators, and tenders. Overall, direct job impacts of industry announcements appear to mimic the initial impacts estimated. Direct job impacts are also largely concentrated in those occupations more strongly aligned to the technical aspects of carpet manufacturing and the transportation and shipping of products. However, among the direct job impacts, openings in occupations that span into other manufacturing industries are also present, such as industry machinery mechanics, sales representatives, and maintenance and repair workers.

Table 17: Greatest Number of “Direct” Jobs Based on Industry Announcements




SOCCode

Description AllOcc

CarpeOcc



-8% -11% 5,704 495 149 8 0


4% -17% 6,736 22 41 4 6


2% -20% 6,535 112 21 3 7

49-9041 Industrial Machinery Mechanics

10% -7% 1,593 74 20 1 0

51-6063 Textile Knitting and Weaving Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders

-23% -21% 2,715 223 18 1 0

41-4012 Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing, Except Technical and Scientific Products

10% -14% 3,771 48 16 2 4

51-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Production and Operating Workers

-9% -16% 2,763 128 14 1 1



NOVEMBER 2014

41




SOCCode

Description AllOcc

CarpeOcc


51-6091 Extruding and Forming Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Synthetic and Glass Fibers

-16% -19% 801 55 14 1 0

49-9071 Maintenance and Repair Workers, General

1.% -17% 3,440 62 13 1 5

53-7051 Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators

-17% -23% 3,239 144 11 1 1

51-9061 Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers

-10% -19% 2,111 96 11 1 1

Indirect Jobs

Textile winding, twisting, and drawing out machine setters, operators, and tenders will also see the largest number of indirect (supplier’s suppliers) jobs created as a result of the impact of the industry announcements, as show in Table 18. Overall, direct job impacts of industry announcements appear to mimic the initial impacts estimated. Indirect job growth includes blue collar occupations that are less industry-specific, such as heavy and tractor trailer truck drivers, janitors, and laborers and freight, stock, and material movers. Agricultural management jobs, including farmers and ranchers also see a small boost, though these agricultural positions are forecasted to decline across all occupations by 11 percent.

Table 18: Greatest Number of “Indirect” Jobs Based on Industry Announcements




SOCCode

Description AllOcc

CarpetOcc



-8% -11% 5,704 495 149 8 0

11-9013 Farmers, Ranchers, and Other Agricultural Managers

-11% N/A 4,799 0 5 5 1



NOVEMBER 2014

42




SOCCode

Description AllOcc

CarpetOcc



4% -17% 6,736 22 41 4 6

37-2011 Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners

11% -13% 6,193 17 10 3 13


2% -20% 6,535 112 21 3 7

Induced Jobs

Induced jobs, tertiary jobs that are created in response to increases in both direct and indirect employment, include a number of service positions, occupations in retail, real estate, food service, health care, childcare, and janitorial services. Skilled trades, such as carpentry and construction, also saw slight increases as a result of the impact of the industry announcements, as illustrated in Table 19.

Table 19: Greatest Number of “Induced” Jobs Based on Industry Announcements




SOCCode

Description AllOcc

CarpetOcc


41-2031 Retail Salespersons

13% -16% 10,315 18 3 1 42

41-2011 Cashiers 5% #N/A 7,693 0 2 1 3041-9022 Real Estate Sales

Agents6% #N/A 7,939 0 5 2 25

35-3021 Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food

22% #N/A 6,756 0 2 1 23

41-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers

14% -24% 5,631 4 2 0 23

35-3031 Waiters and Waitresses

16% #N/A 4,436 0 2 1 19



NOVEMBER 2014

43




SOCCode

Description AllOcc

CarpetOcc


29-1141 Registered Nurses

23% #N/A 3,850 0 0 0 19

39-9011 Childcare Workers

6% #N/A 3,484 0 0 0 18

47-2031 Carpenters 14% #N/A 3,999 0 1 0 1437-2011 Janitors and

Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners

11% -13% 6,193 17 10 3 13

43-5081 Stock Clerks and Order Fillers

1% -16% 4,050 25 6 1 13

47-2061 Construction Laborers

-1% #N/A 3,994 0 1 1 13

Addressing Workforce Gaps Program Enrollment and Placement

Table 20 provides approximate enrollment information, gleaned from graduation data and program request data for both Georgia Northwestern Technical College (specifically, their industrial systems program), and the Gordon County College and Career Academy. Among Gordon County College and Career Academy, the mechatronics program has drawn a significant number of requests. When available, actual enrollment numbers offer a better estimation of the preparedness of regional youth for employment in advanced manufacturing occupations; however, if program request numbers for mechatronics, digital technology, and engineering, drawing, and design are any indication of future enrollment, the youth of the region may be well positioned to transition into post-secondary education and job placement opportunities in the field upon graduation.

Table 20: Program Enrollment, 2014

College or College and Career Academy

Program Area Enrollment/ Degrees Awarded

Georgia Northwestern Technical College* Industrial Systems 168Gordon County College and Career Academy**

Energy 14Marketing 29Graphic Design/ Communications 159Engineering, Drawing, + Design 82Mechatronics 115Digital Technology 107

*Based on all graduates of the program area as of May 9, 2014. Includes those employed in the field, in a related field, and those continuing their education.

**Numbers based on program requests, actual enrollment numbers may vary.



NOVEMBER 2014

44

Table 21 offers an overview of regional college graduate placement after graduation, as indicated by recent alumni of Dalton State University. Collectively, the floor covering industry has employed the majority of post-graduates, with Shaw Industries (29.5 percent of graduates surveyed) and Mohawk Industries (18.2 percent) leading in the employment of recent graduates from the 2012 – 2014 time period.

Table 21: Top Industry Employers of Recent Graduates (Dalton State University)

2012 2013 2014 2012 - 2014Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Americhem 1 5.0% 1 2.3%Beaulieu of America 1 7.7% 1 5.0% 2 4.5%Challenger Industries 1 5.0% 1 2.3%Cloud Richmond Marketing

1 9.1% 1 2.3%

Dalton Carpet Mart 1 7.7% 1 2.3%Dalyn Rug Company 1 7.7% 1 5.0% 2 4.5%The Dixie Group 2 10.0% 2 18.2% 4 9.1%Engineered Floors 2 10.0% 1 9.1% 3 6.8%Mohawk Industries 4 30.8% 3 15.0% 1 9.1% 8 18.2%Norville Industries 1 5.0% 1 2.3%Shaw Industries 3 23.1% 6 30.0% 4 36.4% 13 29.5%Surya 2 15.4% 2 4.5%Tandus Flooring 1 5.0% 1 2.3%Tech Proven 1 5.0% 1 2.3%Textile Rubber + Chemical Company

1 9.1% 1 2.3%

Tuftco Finishing Systems

1 7.7% 1 2.3%

Woodbridge Foam Fabrics

1 9.1% 1 2.3%

Total 13 20 11 44

Industry Training Programs

In addition to formal training through primary and secondary education programs, local employers also offer a number of internal training programs to prepare recent graduates for advanced positions within their corporations. Table 22 highlights an example of the current programs offered by a regional employer.



NOVEMBER 2014

45

Table 22: Industry College Training Programs

Co-op Program Operations Management Trainee

Sales Trainee Human Resources Trainee

Education RequirementsCollege Student 4 Year Degree 4 Year Degree Bachelor’s degree 2.50 GPA 2.50 GPA College Degree/MajorsChemical Engineering Polymer Textile Fiber

Engineering Human Resources or

similar field

Polymer Engineering Industrial Engineering Textile Engineering Mechanical Engineering Industrial Engineering Operations Management Mechanical Engineering any Textile discipline Electrical Engineering Human Resources Additional Skills Presentation Skills LEAN Enterprise

Introduction

Additional RequirementsCitizenship: US Citizen, Permanent Resident, Refugee, or Asylum

Citizenship: US Citizen, Permanent Resident, Asylum, or Refugee.

Pay Rate (per hour):$14

Innovation IndicatorsGiven the strong manufacturing foundation of the Northwest Georgia economy, and historic underpinnings of industrial innovation, the region has a great deal of patent activity. The region’s trend in patent activity from 2000 to 2011 is shown in Figure 23. Over the last decade, over 51 percent of the patent activity occurred in three counties in the region: Whitfield, Bartow, and Floyd. Further, the Dalton MSA (Whitfield and Murray) accounted for over 23 percent of the total patent activity. Table 23 provides annual patent activity for the region and for the State of Georgia. The region accounted for 2.1 percent of all patent activity in the State of Georgia in 2011. The annual percent change in patent activity for both the region and the state is provided in the bar chart on the following page. Even greater levels of innovation in the region would be possible if the region had a research university that could commercialize faculty research into marketable technologies and companies.



NOVEMBER 2014

46

Figure 23: Annual Percent Change in Patent Activity

Source: US Patent and Trade Office

Table 23: Northwest Georgia Patent Activity as a Percent of the State

Year NorthwestGeorgia

Georgia Northwest Georgia as Pct. of State

2000 41 1,312 3.1%2001 53 1,368 3.9%2002 36 1,296 2.8%2003 38 1,333 2.9%2004 31 1,325 2.3%2005 36 1,215 3.0%2006 55 1,486 3.7%2007 39 1,311 3.0%2008 44 1,345 3.3%2009 35 1,415 2.5%2010 44 1,907 2.3%2011 41 1,934 2.1%Total 491 17,247 2.8%


Patent activity can also be viewed by technology class by metropolitan and metropolitan area. Table 24 provides the breakdown between the patents issued in the technology textile class and all other technology classes in the Dalton MSA. From 2000 to 2011, 71 percent of patents granted in the Dalton MSA were classified in the Textile technology class. In 2009 and 2010, 100 percent of the patents issued within the MSA were classified as being within the “Textile” technology class.



NOVEMBER 2014

47

Table 24: Dalton MSA Patent Activity in the Textile Technology Class and All Other Technology Classes

Year Total Textile Class Pct. of Total All Other Classes Pct. of Total 2000 12 7 58.3% 5 41.7%2001 10 7 70.0% 3 30.0%2002 14 9 64.3% 5 35.7%2003 13 9 69.2% 4 30.8%2004 11 7 63.6% 4 36.4%2005 9 5 55.6% 4 44.4%2006 10 8 80.0% 2 20.0%2007 10 9 90.0% 1 10.0%2008 10 7 70.0% 3 30.0%2009 5 5 100.0% 0 0.0%2010 3 3 100.0% 0 0.0%2011 7 5 71.4% 2 28.6%Total 114 81 71.1% 33 28.9%




NOVEMBER 2014

48

TARGET INDUSTRY ANALYSISCommunities across the country seek to attract businesses and jobs to their regions. It is a highly competitive process, and companies make their final location decision based on a number of very specific factors. Some of these factors, such as infrastructure and tax credit availability, are within a community’s control. However, there are numerous considerations, from how the CEO feels about their commute, to accessing sports and cultural amenities, which are simply beyond a community’s sphere of influence. Only a quantitative analysis can determine which industries make the most sense for a community to pursue. Furthermore, the industries that are “right” for a particular community must also make financial sense to the community - job opportunities should ideally raise the area’s average income levels, thereby increasing the community’s wealth.

This section reports on the quantitative analysis for business growth opportunities in the Northwest Georgia region. Existing industry in the Northwest Georgia region was examined to determine the best opportunities for further economic development. NAICS-based county-level employment and wage data from the Georgia Department of Labor (GDOL) for the years 2002, 2007, and 2012 were used to conduct this analysis.

Highlights from this section include:

• Despite an employment decrease of more than 33 percent from 2002 to 2012, the floor covering industry cluster provided over 32,000 jobs as of 2012, which is 16 percent of total private sector jobs.

• Vertical integration is prevalent in the supply chain.

• Opportunities for primary target industry efforts include fabricated metal products, wholesale trade in non-durable goods, and professional, scientific, and professional services.

• Opportunities for targeting suppliers or sub-sectors include fabricated metal products; petroleum and coal product manufacturing; machinery manufacturing; merchant wholesalers of nondurable goods; truck transportation; management of companies and enterprises; professional, scientific, and technical services; and the floor covering industry.

• Of the 16 major manufacturing sectors analyzed, all but four have higher than average LQs in the region, which suggests a very high manufacturing multiplier effect on the region’s economy.

High-Wage IndustriesThe first step in this analysis was to examine average weekly wages (AWW) in the Northwest Georgia region and determine a feasible cutoff for defining “high-wage” industry. This cutoff is used to filter the analysis down to those industries with a higher average weekly wage in the region.

The definition of a high-wage industry is based on data collected from the Georgia Department of Labor (GDOL).5 Table 25 shows the AWW in the private sector for the Northwest Georgia region in 2012.6 The high-wage cutoff was set at 10 percent above the region’s private-sector average weekly wage in 2012. All three-digit NAICS industries in the region were compared to the cutoff, and those industries above the cutoff were selected as the initial group for further analysis.7

5 The data collected by GDOL is based on information each firm in the state must submit under the Employment Security Law. Firms submit these data quarterly, and GDOL creates county-level annual estimates of establishments, employment (jobs), and average weekly wages (AWW) by industry category.

6 Private-sector average weekly wages are used rather than total average weekly wages, which includes federal, state, and local government jobs, because the objective of a business development strategy is to stimulate growth in private-sector jobs.

7 North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) is a multi-tiered system of industry classification based on what firms produce. This hierarchical system consists of highly aggregated classifications that are broken down into finer and finer classifications; six-digit codes are the most detailed. NAICS-based county-level employment and wage data from the Georgia Department of Labor (GDOL) for the years 2002, 2007, and 2012 were used to conduct this analysis.



NOVEMBER 2014

49

Table 25: Average Weekly Wages Cutoff for High-Wage Industries in Northwest Georgia

AWW

Average Weekly Wages $676.37Cutoff for High-Wage $744.01

Source: Georgia Department of Labor

Figure 24 shows AWW for the Northwest Georgia region and Georgia for 2002, 2007, and 2012. From 2002 to 2012, wages in the region grew at a rate of approximately 25 percent, whereas wages in Georgia grew by more than 30 percent during that same time period. Overall, the region has lost ground to the rest of Georgia with respect to average income.

Figure 24: Average Weekly Wage in Northwest Georgia and Georgia (2002, 2007, and 2012)


The distribution of AWW by industry is shown in the chart below for the Northwest Georgia region and the State of Georgia. The chart shows the percentage of three-digit NAICS industries in each interval. For example, Northwest Georgia has 17.2 percent of its industries paying $400 or less in average weekly wages, while Georgia has 4.4 percent. The chart shows that 30 percent of industries in the Northwest Georgia region pay between $600 - $800 as an AWW. The Northwest Georgia region falls well behind the state averages for industries paying $1,400 or higher in average weekly wages.



NOVEMBER 2014

50

Figure 25: 2012 Average Weekly Wages Frequency Chart


Opportunities in Existing IndustryExisting industry often provides the greatest opportunities for economic development growth, whether through expansion of a firm already in the region or through recruitment of more firms within an existing cluster. This section examines the Northwest Georgia region’s existing industry that (1) pays higher than average weekly wages; (2) has strong prospects for growth in the U.S.; (3) is growing in the region; and (4) has a concentrated presence relative to the nation.

Selecting High-Wage Industries for Further Analysis

Not all of the high-wage NAICS industries represent opportunities for recruitment. Many of these serve the local Northwest Georgia market, and efforts at recruitment should concentrate on NAICS industries that serve a national or international market. Industries that serve non-Georgia markets bring new money into the state and local economy. The injection of new money into an economy creates further economic activity (multiplier impacts), whereas industries that serve local markets simply recirculate existing income.

Given this, some of the entries in the complete list of high-wage industries were not considered for further analysis. Manufacturing is typically considered an “export” industry because it sells its products outside the immediate area. Most service industries serve a local or small regional market and, therefore, only re-circulate money within a community. However, many high-wage jobs are found in business service sectors, so these were given further consideration. In addition, if companies in the Northwest Georgia region are purchasing services from businesses outside of the region, these purchases represent a leakage that could be “captured” if local companies had an opportunity to purchase these services from other Northwest Georgia firms. Stopping these leaks has the same impact as new money coming into the region’s economy through sales to outside firms, and could add service industries for consideration in the business opportunities analysis.

This study’s emphasis is on existing industry rather than industries that don’t yet exist in the region. This is based on the belief that creating an industry cluster from nothing is much harder than growing healthy, high-wage industries from what already exists in the region.

The following table shows all three-digit NAICS industries in the Northwest Georgia region with an AWW in 2012 above the cutoff for high-wage industries.



NOVEMBER 2014

51

Table 26: NAICS three-digit Industries in the Northwest Georgia Region, 2012, with AWW Above the High-Wage Cutoff

NAICS Title Jobs Firms LQ AWW Mining, Utilities, and Construction

212 Mining (except Oil and Gas) 452 22 1.15 $1,010221 Utilities 1,309 31 1.32 $1,484236 Construction of Buildings 1,055 341 0.47 $783237 Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction 493 87 0.32 $859

Manufacturing312 Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing 609 15 1.76 $1,405

313* Textile Mills 8,913 91 41.76 $683314 Textile Product Mills 21,029 214 100.64 $772

321* Wood Product Manufacturing 1,010 54 1.65 $740322 Paper Manufacturing 1,203 22 1.75 $1,171324 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing 41 7 0.20 $950325 Chemical Manufacturing 2,889 73 2.03 $1,015326 Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing 4,151 63 3.56 $803327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing 761 51 1.15 $904331 Primary Metal Manufacturing 1,284 17 1.77 $1,155332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 1,852 143 0.73 $883333 Machinery Manufacturing 1,561 73 0.79 $951335 Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component

Manufacturing1,396 8 2.07 $769

336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing 3,835 35 1.45 $851337 Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing 1,691 59 2.66 $816

339* Miscellaneous Manufacturing 665 53 0.64 $693 Wholesale Trade

423 Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods 7,031 504 1.38 $850424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods 1,956 171 0.55 $888425 Wholesale Electronic Markets and Agents and Brokers 726 285 0.46 $1,152

Transportation and Warehousing481 Air Transportation 188 6 0.23 $1,250484 Truck Transportation 4,582 289 1.89 $755486 Pipeline Transportation 13 3 0.16 $2,058488 Support Activities for Transportation 490 79 0.47 $822492 Couriers and Messengers 379 24 0.40 $759

Business and Consumer Services511 Publishing Industries (except Internet) 864 26 0.65 $910517 Telecommunications 1,680 85 1.09 $920518 Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services 20 5 0.04 $1,023

*These industries have an AWW higher the region’s private industry average and are part of the region’s floor covering cluster; therefore, they are included for further consideration.




NOVEMBER 2014

52

NAICS Title Jobs Firms LQ AWW522 Credit Intermediation and Related Activities 3,233 363 0.69 $779523 Securities, Commodity Contracts, and Other Financial

Investments and Related Activities136 66 0.09 $1,602

524 Insurance Carriers and Related Activities 1,387 318 0.37 $980533 Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets (except

Copyrighted Works)96 9 2.18 $1,519

541 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 6,873 1202 0.48 $980551 Management of Companies and Enterprises 1,012 56 0.28 $1,475

Health and Social Services621 Ambulatory Health Care Services 8,608 873 0.75 $1,039622 Hospitals 8,978 25 1.05 $910

*These industries have an AWW higher the region’s private industry average and are part of the region’s floor covering cluster; therefore, they are included for further consideration.


Location Quotient AnalysisA location quotient (LQ) provides insight into which industries appear to be concentrated in a given geographic area. It is estimated by dividing the percentage of total employment a particular NAICS industry represents in the study area by the same ratio for the United States. A LQ greater than 1.0 indicates a larger-than-average (using the U.S. ratio as “average”) share of total employment in the area. A value less than 1.0 indicates just the opposite, and a value of 1.0 means it represents a concentration equal to the national average.

LQ Values and Definitions

LQ > 1.0A LQ greater than 1.0 indicates that an industry’s share of employment in the region is larger than the U.S. average. These industries satisfy local demand and “export” the excess.

LQ = 1.0A LQ equal to 1.0 indicates that an industry’s share of employment in the region is equal to the U.S. average. These industries produce just enough to satisfy local demand.

LQ < 1.0A LQ less than 1.0 indicates that an industry’s share of employment in the region is smaller than the U.S. average. These industries do not satisfy local demand, and the difference must be imported.

LQs were estimated for 2002, 2007, and 2012 for all high-wage three-digit NAICS industries found in the Northwest Georgia region in 2012. A high LQ may not always indicate a robust and growing industry cluster. When calculating LQs for a small geographic area like a county, one large plant can produce a large LQ because its employment is large relative to the county’s total employment. Typically, one-firm industries with large LQs are not selected as targets for further expansion unless special conditions make it a good strategy.

The table below contains LQ data for 2002, 2007, and 2012; average weekly wages for 2012; and projected U.S. job and output annual growth rates for the period 2012 to 2022. U.S. projections are from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) produces a forecast of employment and output for the period 2012 through 2022, by four-digit NAICS code (some are only at the three-digit



NOVEMBER 2014

53

level). Because the primary purpose of the business opportunities analysis is to find suitable industries for recruitment, U.S. growth rates are more appropriate. In some cases, BLS does not provide forecasts at the three-digit NAICS level of detail; therefore, the same growth rates are used for several three-digit industries. In other cases, BLS does not provide a forecast at all. LQs for the years shown only appear if that industry existed in the region during one of those years.

Data in the table below can be used to define business growth opportunities for the Northwest Georgia region based on its existing industry, how well concentrated these industries are in the region and current BLS projections.

Table 27: High-Wage Industry Summary for the Northwest Georgia Region

Northwest Georgia LQs

Northwest Georgia

AWW ($)

Annual U.S. Projections 2012-2022

NAICS Title 2002 2007 2012 2012 Pct. Job Growth

Pct. Output Growth

Mining, Utilities, and Construction212 Mining (except Oil and Gas) 1.89 1.46 1.15 1,010 0.3 2.1221 Utilities 1.16 1.30 1.32 1,484 -1.1 2.3236 Construction of Buildings 0.86 0.65 0.47 783 2.6 4.1237 Heavy and Civil Engineering

Construction0.60 0.68 0.32 859 2.6 4.1

Manufacturing312 Beverage and Tobacco Product

Manufacturing2.12 1.88 1.76 1,405 -0.2 1.0

313 Textile Mills 24.98 32.78 41.76 683 -2.4 -0.8314 Textile Product Mills 86.37 92.64 100.64 772 -2.4 -0.8321 Wood Product Manufacturing 1.17 1.31 1.65 740 1.4 3.2322 Paper Manufacturing 1.78 0.84 1.75 1,171 -0.9 1.4324 Petroleum and Coal Products

Manufacturing0.08 0.15 0.20 950 -0.9 2.6

325 Chemical Manufacturing 1.49 1.64 2.03 1,015 -0.7 3.0326 Plastics and Rubber Products

Manufacturing1.74 2.04 3.56 803 -0.8 2.1

327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing

1.18 1.46 1.15 904 1.1 3.4

331 Primary Metal Manufacturing 1.35 1.84 1.77 1,155 -1.2 1.0332 Fabricated Metal Product

Manufacturing0.67 0.80 0.73 883 0.6 2.6

333 Machinery Manufacturing 0.71 0.74 0.79 951 -0.8 2.9335 Electrical Equipment, Appliance,

and Component Manufacturing2.92 2.28 2.07 769 -1.5 2.6

336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing

0.69 1.43 1.45 851 0 2.8

337 Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing

1.83 2.33 2.66 816 0.2 2.9



NOVEMBER 2014

54


Northwest Georgia

AWW ($)



Pct. Output Growth

339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 0.26 0.48 0.64 693 -1.1 3.3 Wholesale Trade

423 Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods

0.86 1.10 1.38 850 0.8 3.7

424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods

0.68 0.59 0.55 888 0.8 3.7

425 Wholesale Electronic Markets and Agents and Brokers

0.51 0.57 0.46 1,152 0.8 3.7

Transportation and Warehousing481 Air Transportation 0.12 0.15 0.23 1,250 -1.2 2.8484 Truck Transportation 1.66 1.49 1.89 755 0.9 2.9486 Pipeline Transportation 0.07 0.12 0.16 2,058 -1.9 3.0488 Support Activities for

Transportation0.23 0.39 0.47 822 1.8 2.9

492 Couriers and Messengers 0.31 0.32 0.40 759 -0.9 3.4 Business and Consumer Services

511 Publishing Industries (except Internet)

0.40 0.48 0.65 910 -0.4 3.7

517 Telecommunications 0.87 0.98 1.09 920 -0.6 3.4518 Data Processing, Hosting, and

Related Services0.06 0.02 0.04 1,023 0.7 4.7

522 Credit Intermediation and Related Activities

0.73 0.71 0.69 779 0.5 3.4

523 Securities, Commodity Contracts, and Other Financial Investments and Related Activities

0.09 0.09 0.09 1,602 2.1 4.7

524 Insurance Carriers and Related Activities

0.34 0.32 0.37 980 0.7 2.3

533 Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets (except Copyrighted Works)

#N/A 0.14 2.18 1,519 1.1 3.8

541 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

0.68 0.61 0.48 980 2.1 3.2

551 Management of Companies and Enterprises

0.20 0.12 0.28 1,475 0.3 3.9

Health and Social Services621 Ambulatory Health Care Services 0.69 0.72 0.75 1,039 3.3 3.7622 Hospitals 0.94 0.96 1.05 910 1.6 2.5



NOVEMBER 2014

55

Further Refinement of Selected IndustriesThe next step in this process was to further refine the list shown in the table above. All high-wage industries were included to provide an overall look at each aggregate industry in the Northwest Georgia region that had at least one high-wage, three-digit NAICS industry. Not all of these warrant further examination in this business opportunities analysis.

Excluded Industry CategoriesIndustry categories that will not be considered further are listed below with reasons for being dropped.

Mining, Utilities, and Construction

NAICS 236 and 237 were dropped from the list of Mining, Utilities, and Construction category because construction, in general, tends to serve a very local market (residential construction) and tends to easily expand or retract as needed. It is hardly ever considered a target for further recruitment. The utilities industry serves a local market and would not make a good candidate.

Health and Social Services

This industry category can represent an opportunity if certain three-digit industries in this category show up for the area. For example, medical and diagnostic laboratories, along with medical equipment and supplies manufacturing and a research hospital, could be the makings of a health industry cluster. However, the Northwest Georgia region does not have any of these elements; therefore, this industry category does not appear to offer any business growth opportunities to pursue.

Selected Industry CategoriesThe remaining categories were selected for further analysis. An examination of LQs and growth potential for the industries in these categories should reveal the best opportunities, but there are limits to this type of numerical analysis. For example, high LQs don’t reveal how large an industry is in terms of establishments or employment. A very small industry group with only one or two firms may still have disproportionately high employment resulting in a high LQ. With such a small number of firms, it may be very difficult to recruit more of the same or expand the existing firms. It also is unlikely that any kind of supplier network exists in the immediate area. Because of Georgia Tech’s confidentiality agreement with GDOL, such small industries cannot be revealed in terms of number of establishments and number of employees.

Manufacturing

Manufacturing industries have a relatively high multiplier effect on the region’s economy because they are selling their goods outside of the region. Of the sixteen manufacturing industries in the table, all but four, Petroleum and Coal Product Manufacturing (NAICS 324), Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing (NAICS 332), Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS 333), and Miscellaneous Manufacturing (NAICS 339) have higher than average LQs. As such, those four industries have been removed from further consideration and are not shown in the table below.



NOVEMBER 2014

56

Table 28: Selected Manufacturing Industries for Further Consideration


Northwest Georgia

AWW ($)



Pct. Output Growth

312 Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing

2.12 1.88 1.76 1,405 -0.2 1.0

313 Textile Mills 24.98 32.78 41.76 683 -2.4 -0.8314 Textile Product Mills 86.37 92.64 100.64 772 N/A N/A321 Wood Product Manufacturing 1.17 1.31 1.65 740 1.4 3.2322 Paper Manufacturing 1.78 0.84 1.75 1,171 -0.9 1.4325 Chemical Manufacturing 1.49 1.64 2.03 1,015 -0.7 3.0326 Plastics and Rubber Products

Manufacturing1.74 2.04 3.56 803 -0.8 2.1


1.18 1.46 1.15 904 1.1 3.4

331 Primary Metal Manufacturing 1.35 1.84 1.77 1,155 -1.2 1.0335 Electrical Equipment, Appliance,

and Component Manufacturing2.92 2.28 2.07 769 -1.5 2.6

336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing

0.69 1.43 1.45 851 0 2.8


1.83 2.33 2.66 816 0.2 2.9


According to BLS projections, the majority (7) of the manufacturing industries in the table above are projected to decrease in employment from 2012 to 2022, while only one is forecast to have negative output growth (NAICS 313). Positive output growth and negative employment growth projections typically mean more automation in the industry. Despite the negative projection of jobs and output, the region’s traditional reliance on textiles is evident in the very high LQs for Textile Mills (NAICS 313) and Textile Products (NAICS 314). Both industries remain strong and continue to grow in relative importance in the county as shown by the increasing LQ values from 2002 to 2007, and then again from 2007 to 2012. With 305 firms employing approximately 15 percent of the region’s private sector employment, the importance of these two industries to the region’s economy is further demonstrated. It should be mentioned that average weekly wages for NAICS 313 do not meet the high-wage criteria, but firms do pay, on average, wages higher than the region’s private sector average, and the industry is clearly important to the region.

Both Wood Product Manufacturing (NAICS 321) and Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing (NAICS 337) are expected to increase in employment and output over the next ten years. This projected increase may likely be tied to expected improvements in the housing market across the nation. Further, both industries report strong LQs that have increased since 2002. It may be worth examining these industries further because of their forecasted strong employment and output growth.

Other manufacturing industries showing promise for further growth are Paper Manufacturing (NAICS 322), Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 325), and Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing (NAICS 326). These industries all have strong LQs that have increased since 2007, and the BLS projects that these industries will



NOVEMBER 2014

57

experience strong output growth. Further, NAICS 322 and NAICS 325 pay some of the highest weekly wages within the manufacturing industries ($1,171 and $1,015, respectively). Given the number of firms already in the region, these industries should be examined to better understand if they present an opportunity for further growth.

Although the BLS projects that employment in Transportation Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 336) will stay steady in the U.S. over the next ten years, it has become more concentrated in the Northwest Georgia region since 2002. There were 35 firms in this industry in the region in 2012 that accounted for more than 3,800 jobs (nearly 110 jobs per firm). The LQ grew from 0.69 in 2002 to 1.45 in 2012, indicating that this industry has a robust concentration in the region. The LQ, coupled with the projected growth in output, makes this industry a promising one for the region.

Both NAICS 312 and NAICS 331 pay high wages ($1,405 and $1,155 respectively,) and are expected to experience output growth. However, the LQs for these industries, while still high, have declined over the years. A more in-depth look at these industries reveals a decline in jobs between 2002 and 2012. Figuring out why this industry is declining is an important objective given its relative importance to manufacturing in the region.

As a final note on the manufacturing industry in the region, five of the twelve industries examined have fallen between 2002 and 2007, a period of growth in the national economy. In the recession period between 2007 and 2012, jobs fell off in all but three manufacturing industries in the region (NAICS 322, NAICS 325, and NAICS 326). With a deep recession in the data, trends are difficult to pick out. For this reason it may be best to look at the 2002 to 2007 period for growing manufacturing industries that may provide opportunities for expansion in the region. Industries including Wood Product Manufacturing, Chemical Manufacturing, Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing, Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing, Primary Metal Manufacturing, Transportation Equipment Manufacturing, and Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing all grew over the 2001 to 2007 period in the fifteen-county region. Only Chemical Manufacturing and Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing increased from 2002 to 2007 and again from 2007 to 2012. These may offer opportunities depending on the types of firms found in each three-digit NAICS industry. A list of firms can be procured from business list vendors such as Dunn & Bradstreet.

Table 29: Job Growth/Decline in the Northwest Georgia Region Manufacturing Industries

NAICS Title 2002 Jobs

2007 Jobs

2012 Jobs

Change in Jobs

‘02 – ’07

Change in Jobs

’07 – ’12

Change in Jobs

’02 – ’12312 Beverage and Tobacco Product

Manufacturing872 752 609 -14% -19% -30%

313 Textile Mills 14,575 11,299 8,913 -22% -21% -39%314 Textile Product Mills 33,595 29,897 21,029 -11% -30% -37%321 Wood Product Manufacturing 1,299 1,369 1,010 5% -26% -22%322 Paper Manufacturing 1,940 777 1,203 -60% 55% -38%325 Chemical Manufacturing 2,752 2,867 2,889 4% 1% 5%326 Plastics and Rubber Products

Manufacturing2,950 3,124 4,151 6% 33% 41%


1,223 1,482 761 21% -49% -38%

331 Primary Metal Manufacturing 1,370 1,702 1,284 24% -25% -6%335 Electrical Equipment, Appliance,

and Component Manufacturing2,884 1,980 1,396 -31% -29% -52%



NOVEMBER 2014

58

NAICS Title 2002 Jobs

2007 Jobs

2012 Jobs

Change in Jobs

‘02 – ’07

Change in Jobs

’07 – ’12

Change in Jobs

’02 – ’12336 Transportation Equipment

Manufacturing2,496 4,954 3,835 98% -23% 54%


2,209 2,508 1,691 14% -33% -23%


Wholesale Trade

Economic growth strategies typically do not consider Wholesale Trade as a viable target because it serves a local market and generally follows retail growth. Northwest Georgia’s three wholesale industries that were included in the high-wage category are shown in Table 30.

Table 30: Selected Wholesale Trade Industries for Further Consideration


Northwest Georgia

AWW ($)



Pct. Output Growth

423 Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods

0.86 1.10 1.38 850 0.8 3.7

424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods

0.68 0.59 0.55 888 0.8 3.7

425 Wholesale Electronic Markets and Agents and Brokers

0.51 0.57 0.46 1,152 0.8 3.7


The average number of jobs per firm in this industry (10) is much smaller than the nearly 70 jobs/firm average for the twelve manufacturing industries that were considered. Of these three, NAICS 423 is the largest in the region with 504 firms employing 7,031.8 Additionally, it is the only Wholesale Industry with a LQ great than 1.0 (1.38), indicating an industry concentration in the region.

Some wholesale establishments may be connected with a single manufacturer and promote and sell the particular manufacturer’s products to a wide range of other wholesalers or retailers. Other wholesalers may be connected to a retail chain or a limited number of retail chains and only provide a variety of products needed by these customers, and they may obtain the products from a wide range of manufacturers. How the wholesalers in the Northwest Georgia region operate may be something to investigate if growth in this sector is an objective. However, wholesale growth is the result of growth in population and businesses, and tends to grow organically.

Transportation and Warehousing

There were five, three-digit Transportation and Warehousing industries that were represented in the Northwest 8 NAICS 423 is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as follows: Industries in the merchant wholesalers, durable goods sub-sector sell

capital or durable goods to other businesses. Merchant wholesalers generally take title to the goods that they sell; in other words, they buy and sell goods on their own account. Durable goods are new or used items generally with a normal life expectancy of three years or more. Durable goods merchant wholesale trade establishments are engaged in wholesaling products, such as motor vehicles, furniture, construction materials, machinery and equipment (including household-type appliances), metals and minerals (except petroleum), sporting goods, toys and hobby goods, recyclable materials, and parts. https://www.census.gov/econ/census02/naics/sector42/423.htm



NOVEMBER 2014

59

Georgia region’s economy and passed the high-wage hurdle. Truck Transportation (NAICS 484) accounted for the largest share of jobs within the Transportation and Warehousing category, employing 4,582 in the 289 firms in the region. Truck Transportation is also the only industry in the category to report an LQ greater than 1.0 in the region, and is expected to grow in jobs and output over the next ten years.

In Table 31, both Air Transportation (NAICS 481) and Pipeline Transportation (NAICS 486) reported very high wages in the region in 2012 ($1,250 and $2,058, respectively). However combined, these two industries only employ a combined 201 workers in nine firms, and both have low LQs.

Table 31: Selected Transportation and Warehousing Industries for Further Consideration


Northwest Georgia

AWW ($)



Pct. Output Growth

481 Air Transportation 0.12 0.15 0.23 1,250 -1.2 2.8484 Truck Transportation 1.66 1.49 1.89 755 0.9 2.9486 Pipeline Transportation 0.07 0.12 0.16 2,058 -1.9 3.0488 Support Activities for

Transportation0.23 0.39 0.47 822 1.8 2.9

492 Couriers and Messengers 0.31 0.32 0.40 759 -0.9 3.4Source: Georgia Department of Labor

Business and Consumer Services

The Business and Consumer Services industry group covers various industry groups and contains many of the high-tech and high-paying jobs that most communities are eager to attract and grow. Many of these industries serve very local markets, that is, they provide information, computer, legal, business consulting, engineering, management, and advertising services to other, usually basic, industries in the economic region. As such, they are not export or basic industries themselves. However, they can act as “import substitution” firms because without them their customers would have to locate firms outside of the Northwest Georgia region to get the services these firms provide. That also has a positive impact on the region’s economy. The following table lists the industries within the Business and Consumer Services industry group that met the high-wage cutoff.

Table 32: Selected Business and Consumer Services Industries for Further Consideration


Northwest Georgia

AWW ($)



Pct. Output Growth

511 Publishing Industries (except Internet)

0.40 0.48 0.65 910 -0.4 3.7

517 Telecommunications 0.87 0.98 1.09 920 -0.6 3.4518 Data Processing, Hosting, and

Related Services0.06 0.02 0.04 1,023 0.7 4.7

522 Credit Intermediation and Related Activities

0.73 0.71 0.69 779 0.5 3.4



NOVEMBER 2014

60


Northwest Georgia

AWW ($)



Pct. Output Growth

523 Securities, Commodity Contracts, and Other Financial Investments and Related Activities

0.09 0.09 0.09 1,602 2.1 4.7

524 Insurance Carriers and Related Activities

0.34 0.32 0.37 980 0.7 2.3

533 Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets (except Copyrighted Works)

#N/A 0.14 2.18 1,519 1.1 3.8

541 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

0.68 0.61 0.48 980 2.1 3.2

551 Management of Companies and Enterprises

0.20 0.12 0.28 1,475 0.3 3.9


All of the three-digit industries in this group have LQs with the exception of Telecommunications (NAICS 517) and Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets (except Copyrighted Works) (NAICS 533).9 Although the Telecommunications industry’s LQ is above average, the industry itself, made up of firms that sell wired and wireless telecommunication services, as well as cable providers, is not generally suited for a growth strategy given that it generally serves a very local market and responds on its own to population growth.

The majority of the industries in the table above are expected to experience high growth nationally in the value of output and in jobs; Publishing Industries (except Internet) (NAICS 511) and Telecommunications (NAICS 517) are projected to decline. The relatively high wages and expected high national growth for the industries in Table 32 make most of the industries desirable for further expansion. Further, NAICS with a LQ below 1.0 in 2012 may represent those for which services are being obtained from firms located outside of the Northwest Georgia region; thus these NAICS may offer opportunities to bring in new money in the form of curtailed “leakages.”

Analysis of Regional Purchaser-Supplier IndustriesEvery industry purchases inputs from a wide variety of other industries. The BEA maintains a website that enables researchers to access the U.S. input-output accounts data. The “use matrix” within this system provides information on the inputs to production for any given industry. The industries that sell goods and services to purchasing industries form what is referred to as a “supply chain.” For example, firms in NAICS 314 (Textile Product Mills) purchase inputs from over 50 major industries to make their products.

In the Northwest Georgia region, there are five manufacturing sectors with LQs of two or higher. Each of these three-digit NAICS industries could offer opportunities for recruiting supplier industries to Northwest Georgia. However, it would not make sense to target over 50 industries for each of these sectors. Researchers chose the top five supplier industries (based on value of commodity output) in each of the five manufacturing sectors. They are shown in the table below.

One caveat about the (I/O) use table is that the industry coding system does not correspond exactly to the 9 Industries in the Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets (except Copyrighted Works) sub-sector include establishments that are

primarily engaged in assigning rights to assets, such as patents, trademarks, brand names, and/or franchise agreements for which a royalty payment or licensing fee is paid to the asset holder. Establishments in this sub-sector own the patents, trademarks, and/or franchise agreements that they allow others to use or reproduce for a fee and may or may not have created those assets.



NOVEMBER 2014

61

NAICS coding system. There are some exceptions; researchers had to modify the I/O coding to correspond to the NAICS coding based only on the code’s description. Also, the level of detail provided in the I/O tables is sometimes at the three-, four-, or five-digit level. For purposes of this analysis, we are only focusing on high-level aggregation at the three-digit NAICS level.

Once a correspondence between NAICS codes and I/O codes could be made, it could be determined whether this industry existed in the Northwest Georgia region in 2012 based on the data obtained from the Georgia Department of Labor. In the tables below, the column “2012 MSA Jobs” contain data when this industry was found in the region. If it was not in the region, the table cell shows “None.”

The supplier industries in the tables below that either could not be found in the region, or have very low LQs, may offer opportunities for Northwest Georgia to fill the apparent “supplier void”. Each of these should be evaluated for possible recruitment to the Northwest Georgia region. Two things to consider are (1) whether these represent specialty inputs that only a small niche industry can provide, and (2) whether the demand for the supplier industry’s output is large enough to make the case for a plant location (for manufacturing) in Northwest Georgia. In addition, more traditional filters for identifying target industries such as national growth, industry outlook, etc. should also be considered before targeting a specific supplier.

Table 33: Supplier Industries for NAICS 314 – Textile Product

NAICS NAICS Title 2012Northwest

Georgia Jobs

2012 Northwest

Georgia LocationQuotient

2012 Northwest

Georgia AWW ($)

U.S. Projections 2012 - 2022

Pct.Job

Growth

Pct.Output Growth

325 Chemical products 2,889 2.03 1,015 -0.7 3.0313 Textile mills 8,913 41.76 683 -2.4 -0.8424 Wholesale trade, non-durable

goods1,956 0.55 888 0.8 3.7

551 Management of companies and enterprises

1,012 0.28 1,475 0.3 3.9

541 Professional, scientific, and technical services

6,873 0.48 980 2.1 3.2

111 Farms 287 0.29 520 -0.8 2.0484 Truck transportation 4,582 1.89 755 0.9 2.9221 Utilities 1,309 1.32 1,484 -1.1 2.3315 Apparel and leather and allied

products manufacturing83 0.31 494 -7.6 -0.6

332 Fabricated metal products 1,203 0.73 883 0.6 2.6Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Industry Economic Accounts



NOVEMBER 2014

62

Table 34: Supplier Industries for NAICS 326 – Plastics and Rubber Product

NAICS NAICS Title 2012 Northwest

Georgia Jobs

2012 Northwest


2012 Northwest

Georgia AWW ($)


Pct. Jobs

Growth

Pct. Output Growth

325 Chemical products 2,889 2.03 1,015 -0.7 3.0424 Wholesale trade, non-durable

goods1,956 0.55 888 0.8 3.7

332 Fabricated metal products 1,203 0.73 883 0.6 2.6551 Management of companies and

enterprises1,012 0.28 1,475 0.3 3.9

541 Professional, scientific, and technical services

6,873 0.48 980 2.1 3.2

322 Paper products manufacturing 1,203 1.75 1,171 -0.9 1.4221 Utilities 1,309 1.32 1,484 -1.1 2.3113 Forestry, fishing, and related

activities205 2.04 699 0.6 2.2

313 Textile mills 8,913 41.76 683 -2.4 -0.8484 Truck transportation 4,582 1.89 755 0.9 2.9Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Industry Economic Accounts

Table 35: Supplier Industries for NAICS 337 – Furniture & Related Products


Georgia Jobs

2012 Northwest


2012 Northwest

Georgia AWW ($)


Pct. Jobs Growth

Pct. Output Growth

321 Wood products 1,010 1.65 740 1.4 3.2326 Plastics and rubber products 4,151 3.56 803 -0.8 2.1423 Wholesale trade, durable goods 7,031 1.38 850 0.8 3.7331 Primary metals 1,284 1.77 1,155 -1.2 1.0313 Textile mills 8,913 41.76 683 -2.4 -0.8332 Fabricated metal products 1,203 0.73 883 0.6 2.6541 Professional, scientific, and

technical services6,873 0.48 980 2.1 3.2

325 Chemical products 2,889 2.03 1,015 -0.7 3.0551 Management of companies and

enterprises1,012 0.28 1,475 0.3 3.9

484 Truck transportation 4,582 1.89 755 0.9 2.9Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Industry Economic Accounts



NOVEMBER 2014

63

Table 36: Supplier Industries for NAICS 335 – Electrical Equipment Manufacturing


Georgia Jobs

2012 Northwest


2012 Northwest

Georgia AWW ($)


Pct. Jobs Growth

Pct. Output Growth

331 Primary metals 1,284 1.77 1,155 -1.2 1.0332 Fabricated metal products 1,203 0.73 883 0.6 2.6424 Wholesale trade, non-durable

goods1,956 0.55 888 0.8 3.7

334 Computer and electronic products

521 0.26 712 -1.4 4.3

325 Chemical products 2,889 2.03 1,015 -0.7 3.0333 Machinery 1,561 0.79 951 -0.8 2.9551 Management of companies and

enterprises1,012 0.28 1,475 0.3 3.9

326 Plastics and rubber products 4,151 3.56 803 -0.8 2.1541 Professional, scientific, and


327 Nonmetallic mineral products 761 1.15 904 1.1 3.4Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Industry Economic Accounts

Table 37: Supplier Industries for NAICS 325 – Chemical Manufacturing


Georgia Jobs

2012 Northwest


2012 Northwest

Georgia AWW ($)


Pct. Jobs Growth

Pct.Output Growth

551 Management of companies and enterprises

1,012 0.28 1,475 0.3 3.9

424 Wholesale trade, non-durable goods

1,956 0.55 888 0.8 3.7

324 Petroleum and coal products 41 0.20 950 -0.9 2.6221 Utilities 1,309 1.32 1,484 -1.1 2.3541 Professional, scientific, and


211 Oil and gas extraction None N/A N/A 1.7 2.5326 Plastics and rubber products 4,151 3.56 803 -0.8 2.1332 Fabricated metal products 1,203 0.73 883 0.6 2.6482 Rail transportation None N/A N/A -0.4 2.5111 Farms 287 0.29 520 -0.8 2.0

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Industry Economic Accounts



NOVEMBER 2014

64

A review of these supplier industries shows that 1) many of the top manufacturing industries are suppliers to other top manufacturing industries, suggesting that there is a lot of vertical integration already occurring in the supply chain, and 2) that there are a few industries that show up in the supplier chain of several top manufacturing sectors that have low LQs, and therefore, may provide opportunities for target industry efforts. Specifically, fabricated metal products, wholesale trade in non-durable goods, and professional, scientific, and professional services are all sectors that appear in multiple supply chains, but have less than their share of employment based on their LQ.

Again, Northwest Georgia should consider 1) whether these represent specialty inputs that only a small niche industry can provide and 2) whether the demand for the supplier industry’s output is large enough to make the case for a plant location (for manufacturing) in Northwest Georgia, and 3) whether these industries are demonstrating national growth and have a positive industrial outlook.

Focus on the Floor Covering IndustryThe floor covering industry, traditionally viewed as only carpet and rug mills, is an important part of the Northwest Georgia region’s economy. This is reflected in the values of the 2012 LQ for NAICS 313 and NAICS 314 (41.76 and 100.64, respectively). However, floor covering has grown to encapsulate more than carpet and rugs; it now includes resilient, wood, ceramic, and floor tile manufacturing. The Textile Cluster, as defined by the Porter Cluster Mapping Project, provided an initial base of industries to include, and that cluster definition was expanded to capture resilient floor covering manufacturing (NAICS 32619 Other Plastics Product Manufacturing), wood flooring manufacturing (NAICS 32191 Millwork), and ceramic wall and floor tile manufacturing (NAICS 32712 Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing). In 2012, there were 32,801 jobs in the floor covering industry cluster in the region, a decrease of 33.6 percent from 2002 to 2012 (Figure 2). This has a significant effect on the Northwest Georgia region’s economy since the floor covering industry cluster comprised 16 percent of total private-sector jobs located in the region in 2012.

Table 38 below shows the LQs for each of the five-digit level industries that make up the floor covering sector and how they have changed overtime. All but one five-digit level NAICS-coded industry has a LQ less than 1.0. With an LQ of 298.7 in 2012, the region clearly has a specialization in the carpet industry (NAICS 31411). Coincidentally, the region has become even more specialized in the carpet industry as indicated by NAICS 31411 having the largest net positive change in LQs from 2002 to 2012. It is clear that the region is economically dependent upon the floor covering industry cluster when the high employment number is considered alongside the 2012 LQ for the cluster (18.8).

Table 38: Floor Covering Industry Cluster, Change in LQ, (2002 - 2012)


GeorgiaLocationQuotient

2012 Northwest


LQ Change 2002 - 2012

31311 Fiber, Yarn, and Thread Mills 50.8 81.1 30.331321 Broadwoven Fabric Mills 20.2 40.6 20.431322 Narrow Fabric Mills and Schiffli Machine Embroidery 1.6 1.4 -0.231323 Nonwoven Fabric Mills 6.2 8.5 2.331331 Textile and Fabric Finishing Mills 11.4 18.8 7.431411 Carpet and Rug Mills 268.1 298.7 30.631499 All Other Textile Product Mills 4.3 4.4 0.1



NOVEMBER 2014

65



2012 Northwest


LQ Change 2002 - 2012

32191 Millwork 1.5 1.5 -0.132522 Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments

Manufacturing5.7 8.0 2.3

32619 Other Plastics Product Manufacturing 1.0 2.7 1.832712 Clay Building Material and Refractories

Manufacturing2.3 2.9 0.6

33324 Industrial Machinery Manufacturing 2.7 1.9 -0.833999 All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing 0.3 0.7 0.4Total Floor covering Industry Cluster 17.9 18.8 0.9Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Industry Economic Accounts

Establishments, jobs, average weekly wages, and U.S. projections of growth for the five-digit NAICS composing the floor covering industry cluster are presented in the table below. On average, there are approximately 85 jobs per firm in this industry cluster that pay average weekly wages of $745.85 – just over the high-wage cutoff for the Northwest Georgia region. Overall, six of the industries within the cluster have average weekly wages higher than the high-wage cutoff. The highest wages were paid to employees of NAICS 31322 (Narrow Fabric Mills). All but two of the industries are expected to contract in terms of employment over the ten-year time span, while 6 of the industries are expected to experience strong output growth.

Table 39: Floor Covering Industry Cluster, Job and Growth Projection (2012 - 2022)


Georgia Jobs

2012Northwest

Georgia Establishments

2012 Northwest

Georgia AWW ($)


Pct. Jobs

Growth

Pct. Output Growth

31311 Fiber, Yarn, and Thread Mills 4,963 49 697 -2.4 -0.831321 Broadwoven Fabric Mills 2,528 10 686 -2.4 -0.831322 Narrow Fabric Mills and

Schiffli Machine Embroidery24 4 1,133 -2.4 -0.8

31323 Nonwoven Fabric Mills ND ND ND -2.4 -0.831331 Textile and Fabric Finishing

Mills1,099 22 576 -2.4 -0.8

31411 Carpet and Rug Mills 20,448 181 776 N/A N/A31499 All Other Textile Product Mills 372 21 727 N/A N/A32191 Millwork 280 14 768 1.1 3.632522 Artificial and Synthetic Fibers

and Filaments Manufacturing451 5 577 -1.0 2.4

32619 Other Plastics Product Manufacturing

1,664 26 742 -0.8 1.8



NOVEMBER 2014

66


Georgia Jobs

2012Northwest

Georgia Establishments

2012 Northwest

Georgia AWW ($)


Pct. Jobs

Growth

Pct. Output Growth

32712 Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing

155 7 816 0.9 2.8

33324 Industrial Machinery Manufacturing

425 36 844 -0.7 2.1

33999 All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing

ND 9 639 -2.4 2.8

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Industry Economic Accounts

Recommendations for Industry TargetsThe LQ analysis of existing industries in the Northwest Georgia region resulted in several recommendations for industry targets. A high-wage criterion filtered the complete list of existing industries to just those above the cutoff (10 percent above the 2012 average private-sector wage). The logic was that strategies to grow and retain industries should be directed toward those that can raise the region’s average wage, thus increasing citizens’ standard of living.

From this analysis, three-digit, high-wage NAICS industries in Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, Transportation and Warehousing, and Business and Consumer Services were selected for further analysis. In addition to an industry’s strength in the region, projections of national growth in jobs and output were also considered since the national outlook reflects much larger trends worldwide. Similar considerations were given to an analysis of the suppliers to prominent “purchaser” manufacturing industries in the region.

Manufacturing

The manufacturing sector in the Northwest Georgia region is large with numerous candidates for further growth. In order to narrow the list of potential candidates to those which would be most desirable to the region, industries were evaluated and scored using several metrics: LQ growth, job growth, high wages, projected job and output growth, and whether or not recent manufacturing-related job announcements were made in the region recently. Of that analysis, the following ten manufacturing industries were identified as the best candidates for business expansion and recruitment. All of these industries pay wages higher than the region’s private sector average10, and have LQs greater than 1 indicating an industry concentration already exists in the region in which additional business opportunities can be built.

• NAICS 325 Chemical Manufacturing (strong growth in LQ and employment, high AWW, projected output growth, heavily integrated in the region’s supply chain, recent job announcements )

• NAICS 336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing (strong growth in LQ and employment, high AWW, projected output growth, recent job announcements)

• NAICS 326 Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing (strong growth in LQ and employment, projected output growth, heavily integrated in the region’s supply chain, recent job announcements)

• NAICS 321 Wood Product Manufacturing (strong growth in LQ, projected job and output growth, heavily integrated in the region’s supply chain)

10 NAICS 313 is the exception to the high-wage cutoff.



NOVEMBER 2014

67

• NAICS 331 Primary Metal Manufacturing (strong growth in LQ, high AWW, projected output growth, heavily integrated in the region’s supply chain)

• NAICS 337 Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing (strong growth in LQ, high AWW, projected job and output growth)

• NAICS 322 Paper Manufacturing (high AWW, projected output growth, integrated in the region’s supply chain)

• NAICS 327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing (high AWW, projected job and output growth, integrated in the region’s supply chain)

• NAICS 313 Textile Mills (strong growth in LQ, integrated in the region’s supply chain, recent job announcements)

• NAICS 314 Textile Product Mills (strong growth in LQ, recent job announcements)

Although Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing (NAICS 312) and Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing (NAICS 335) were considered initially, after a careful examination, these industries were found to be less desirable than the 10 listed above.

The analysis of suppliers to regional purchasing industries resulted in a number of highlighted industries. Many top manufacturers are suppliers to other top manufacturers, suggesting that there is vertical integration already occurring in the supply chain. More than half of the identified suppliers were projected to nationally decline in jobs, but only two were projected to decline in output. Careful consideration should be given to which suppliers are most promising based on the strength of the regional firms which purchase from these suppliers, and what types of businesses the Northwest Georgia region is most interested in pursuing. The identified manufacturing suppliers which were projected to grow nationally in either jobs and output were Fabricated Metal Products Manufacturing (NAICS 332), Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing (NAICS 324), and Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS 333). These three industries have high average weekly wages and LQs less than 1.0, indicating that companies are currently having to import the products supplied by these industries.

Wholesale Trade

Wholesale industries are usually tied to local and regional retail but in this sector one three-digit industry was cited above for possible further consideration. Merchant Wholesales, Durable Goods (NAICS 423) has increased in importance in the region, pays high wages, and is expected to increase in jobs and output. The analysis of suppliers to regional purchasing industries identified that Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods (NAICS 424), which also pays high wages and is projected to grow, was a supplier to many of the region’s top manufacturing industries. Further, the LQ (0.55) of NAICS 424 indicates that there is currently a “supplier void” in the region.

Transportation and Warehousing

Consisting of 401 firms, this industry segment accounted for more than 5,600 jobs in 2012. Most of the jobs were in the Truck Transportation industry (NAICS 484). Further, NAICS 484 was a major supplier to three of the top five manufacturing industries in the supply chain analysis, and its projected job and output growth makes it an attractive industry for the Northwest Georgia region to consider pursuing.

Business and Consumer Services

When economic development strategies talk about service industries they mean this group of industries. Most of them serve other businesses with legal; management; accounting; information technology; financial; and other professional, scientific, and technical services. Most have relatively high wages among all high-wage industries and most are projected to have robust growth nationally.



NOVEMBER 2014

68

In the Northwest Georgia region, these industries employ approximately 8 percent of the private sector employment. Firm size within this industry segment ranges from two employees per firm to 33 employees per firm, with the overall average firm size being seven employees. This suggests a strong source of further local entrepreneurial development. The largest in terms of total jobs is Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (NAICS 541), with more than 6,800 jobs among 1,202 firms in 2012.

The only two industries within this group with LQs greater than 1.0 are Telecommunications (NAICS 517) and Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets (except Copyrighted Works (NAICS 533). However, NAICS 517 is not generally suited for a growth strategy given that it generally serves a very local market and responds on its own to population growth.

The supplier analysis revealed that a large percentage of the top manufacturing sectors relied upon two of the business and consumer services industries – Management of Companies and Enterprises (NAICS 551) and Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (NAICS 541). With low LQs (0.28 and 0.48), high wages, and strong growth in jobs and output being projected, these two industries offer a promising opportunity for the Northwest Georgia region to explore further.

Floor Covering Industry Cluster

As a subset of the Manufacturing industry, the floor covering industry cluster was also given further consideration. For many years, carpet and rug mills have been the backbone of the economy in the Northwest Georgia region. Despite a slow down during the Great Recession, this industry is showing signs of growth as evidenced by the recent company expansions and job announcements in the region (Table 14). Further, firms within this cluster have re-tooled processes and products in order to meet a growing consumer demand for floor covering products outside of the traditional carpet and rug products. Average weekly wages for the cluster as a whole pay more than the high-wage cutoff for the region. Although the majority of these industries are projected to have negative job growth, nearly half of the industries are projected to increase in output. Given the importance of this cluster to the region, these industries should be considered further as industry targets for the region.



NOVEMBER 2014

69

ADVANCED MANUFACTURING STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONSWhat does the advanced manufacturing future of the Northwest Georgia region look like, and how do we get there? In developing the answer to this question and the over arching recommendations for strengthening advanced manufacturing in the Northwest Georgia region, the Georgia Tech team considered the following four characteristics as essential elements needed to move each goal forward:

• Broad base of industry and community support;

• Data analysis pointing to existing gaps/needs;

• Tied to long-term regional goals; and

• Impacts economic development for advanced manufacturing, as defined for this strategic planning effort.

The Northwest Georgia Industrial EcosystemAccording to EDA, vibrant industrial ecosystems are comprised of six key elements that can create a cycle of development for a region’s key technology or supply chain (KTS) through integrated investments and relationships among the following areas:

1. Workforce and training;

2. Supplier network;

3. Research and innovation;

4. Infrastructure/site development;

5. Trade and international investment; and

6. Operational improvement and capital access.

The theory is that the more interactions within and between these investment elements can yield the creation of various ‘‘public goods’’ which can help a region’s private sector thrive. It is believed that public investment in these six key elements is needed to develop a self-sustaining ecosystem that attracts private investment from new and existing manufacturers and leads to “broad-based prosperity” - namely in terms of job and investment creation - in the region.

Using the research conducted in this strategy, each of the region’s six investment elements was evaluated on the basis of their health in the Northwest Georgia region’s industrial ecosystem, giving them a rating of: “Currently Addressed” in the existing ecosystem, “Some Improvement” or “Needs Improvement” for elements where the biggest gaps currently exist. Table 40 gives the rationale for each rating. The ratings formulate the basis for the strategy’s recommendations that follow.



NOVEMBER 2014

70

Table 40: Logic Matrix for Implementation

Ecosystem Investment Element

Rating Key Findings

Workforce and Training Needs Improvement • Over 500 mechatronics, industrial maintenance, electronics, and electrical positions need to be immediately filled. • Only 4.9 percent of students are enrolled in manufacturing related tracks at the Northwest Georgia College and Career Academy.

Supplier Networks Some Improvement • Georgia is home to the floor covering industry’s top four companies, but only 65 percent of key floor covering suppliers located in Georgia.• Critical materials (some chemicals, dyes, and resins) purchased out of state.

Research and Innovation Needs Improvement • Lack of research universities located in the region.• Only one SBIR grant was made in the region in the last decade.• Stalled patent activity: only five textile-related patents in 2011.• 80 percent of top floor covering firms have not collaborated with outside agents for innovation.

Infrastructure/Site Development

Some Improvement • 25 full-service business parks totaling 3,170 acres, and three shovel-ready sites totaling 977 acres in the Northwest Georgia region.• Limited highway and direct access to Port of Savannah, a significant time and cost hinderance to manufacturers.

Trade and International Investment

Currently Addressed • Georgia led the nation in exports of tufted carpeting in 2013.• U.S. floor covering exports were valued at $1.487 billion in 2012.• Northwest Georgia has attracted 19 international floor covering firms to the region, $130 million in new investment in the region and 450 new jobs in 2013.

Operational Improvement and Capital Access

Some Improvement • Landfill diversion rate for PCC was 10 percent in 2012, but industry goal is to divert 40 percent of PCC from landfills.



NOVEMBER 2014

71

Vision and Mission Statements In a workshop held on May 29th, 2014, Georgia Tech held a workshop to define the vision and mission for the Advanced Manufacturing Strategy at the Northwest Georgia College and Career Academy. Led by Georgia Tech and facilitated by the GaMEP, the workshop was an open and interactive dialogue, designed to bring the community to consensus about the direction of advanced manufacturing in the region. Participants included the Core Group and other stakeholders, who were asked to identify the key elements found in the most successful advanced manufacturing communities, and the goals that could be attributed to success in Northwest Georgia. Vision statements were drafted by the group, then further refined by Georgia Tech and brought back to the group for consensus. A mission statement was then crafted for advanced manufacturing in the region, which states how the community would ideally move forward to achieve its vision. Northwest Georgia’s regional vision and mission for advanced manufacturing is as follows:

NORTHWEST GEORGIA’S REGIONAL VISION FOR ADVANCED MANUFACTURING

The Northwest Georgia Regional Advanced Manufacturing Strategy will create:

“A world class manufacturing workforce cultivating a culture of talent and innovation in a vibrant and diverse region.”

MISSION STATEMENT FOR ADVANCED MANUFACTURING IN NORTHWEST GEORGIA

“Create economic prosperity in Northwest Georgia to ensure the region’s future as a global leader in the floor covering industry and to foster the environment for advanced manufacturing to grow and thrive.”

“We will implement this shared vision and unified message by:

• Targeting workforce training and education programs to fit industry needs to create a pipeline of skilled labor in the region;

• Developing regionally-critical infrastructure to meet the needs and growth of industry and improved quality life;

• Conducting industry-leading research, innovation, and sustainability to support new technologies, materials, and programs; and

• Collaborating to create meaningful partnerships to guide economic growth.”

Goals, Objectives and StrategiesThe goals, objectives and strategies that resulted from the overarching vision and mission were crafted using several guiding considerations that stakeholders felt were important to consider in the process. Foremost, stakeholders felt that it was important to celebrate and maintain the industrial heritage and global success of not just the floor covering industry, but advanced manufacturing as a whole. With that in mind, Georgia Tech distilled all of the feedback received throughout the planning process into the following five goal areas:

1. Workforce Training and Education: a common theme throughout the strategy process and at the



NOVEMBER 2014

72

top of the list in terms of concerns for the region’s manufacturers, educators, and local officials.

2. Infrastructure: to keep the region competitive and attractive to industry, there is a need for regional transportation, utility, technology, and other infrastructure partnerships, plans, and improvements.

3. Research, Innovation and Sustainability: major initiatives in the floor covering industry revolve around environmental research, innovation and sustainability of the product life cycle. Opportunities exist to improve upon the sustainability of the entire process – everything from the creation of new raw materials, to lean processes, to supply and distribution.

4. Partnerships: there is a strong call for regional cooperation and meaningful partnerships - among educators, chambers of commerce, economic development professionals, educators, and other stakeholders - to implement an Advanced Manufacturing Strategy that spans 15 counties and impacts multiple states.

5. Marketing: needed to change cultural perceptions of what a career in advanced manufacturing looks like – this includes education of the community, parents, teachers, and students alike, about the diverse opportunities available in the industry.

This section describes each of the five goal areas in detail, along with their associated objectives and strategies. Best practice examples are provided where applicable, and key projects that are currently undergoing implementation are highlighted.

RecommendationsFor each strategy, several icons are provided to illustrate its features at a glance. The definition for each icon is provided below.

• Industry Support: Indicates whether the strategy will require industry support to be successful.

• Partnerships: Indicates whether the strategy will require the formation of a partnership (public, private, or a combination) to be viable.

• Sustainability: Indicates that the strategy has a environmental or “green” component.

• Talent: Indicates that the strategy will require local workforce talent or special job skills.

• Lead Partner: Indicates the type of organization needed to be the lead partner - a research university, a private organization, or a public entity.

• Time: Indicates the time frame that would be required to implement the strategy. One bar indicates a short-term project (immediate to one year), two bars indicates a medium-term project (one to three years), and three bars indicates a long-term project (three to five years or longer).

• Cost: Indicates the cost that would be required to implement the strategy. One dollar sign indicates a low-cost project (less than $100k), two dollar signs indicates a medium-cost project ($100k to $250k), and three bars indicates a high-cost project (more than $250k).

Industry Support

Partnerships Sustainability Talent CostLead Partner Time

Recommendation Icons

WORKFORCE TRAINING AND EDUCATION



NOVEMBER 2014

73

Enhancing workforce development, training, and education was identified as the top priority for the region in terms of the long-term success and viability of advanced manufacturing in the region. Currently, there are over 500 job openings in floor covering firms in the region, requiring skills in mechatronics (electrical, mechanical and other engineering skills), industrial maintenance, electronics and electricians, which could be immediately filled if workers with the necessary technical and “soft” skills were available. Since 2013, over 4,000 floor covering-related job announcements have been made in the Northwest Georgia region to staff new facilities, plant expansions, and headquarters operations in the region. However, less than five percent of students are enrolled in manufacturing related career tracks at the local college and career academies nationally, and in Georgia, it’s less than two percent.11 Only 4.9 percent of students are enrolled in manufacturing related tracks at the Northwest Georgia College and Career Academy in Dalton, the industry’s nucleus. Yet, manufacturing employs 25 percent of the total workforce in the Northwest Georgia region. Because approximately 57 percent of the workforce lives within the region, there is strong economic interdependence among counties for a qualified workforce that is trained in both the appropriate technical competencies and “soft skill” workplace competencies. The need for a more comprehensive workforce training and education strategy was reinforced by interviews with manufacturers and other partners in the region.

11 Perkins Collaborative Resource Network, US Department of Education, 2010-2011 school year.




NOVEMBER 2014

74

Objective W1: Develop and nurture a skilled advanced manufacturing workforce in Northwest Georgia.

While more than half of U.S. manufacturers plan to increase domestic production in the next five years, more than 75 percent report a moderate to severe shortage of skilled workers.12 This national-level indication was confirmed during interviews with manufacturers in Northwest Georgia. “Workforce and training” was mentioned as the top weakness in the region’s advanced manufacturing sector, and almost 94 percent indicated that workforce and training was the primary mechanism to improving advanced manufacturing in Northwest Georgia. Applied technical/mechanical skills were among the top needs for manufacturers in Northwest Georgia. These strategies will help create the environment for creating a diverse talent pool of skilled workers to fill the Northwest Georgia region’s manufacturing jobs, now and into the future.

Source: US Department of Education

Strategy W1.1

Create a task group made up of representatives from industry and education to assess the needs of the industry, and develop requirements and a curriculum that is respondent to those needs while meeting educational requirements.

Responsible Parties: Industry partners, College and Career Academies with Georgia Department of Education, the Technical College System of Georgia (TCSG), Georgia Northwestern Technical College (GNTC), Georgia Tech

Supporting Partners: Georgia Department of Economic Development (GDEcD), Georgia Center of Innovation for Manufacturing

Time Frame: 6 months

Cost: Staff Time (minimal)

Funding Sources: Georgia Center of Innovation for Manufacturing

12 Accenture 2014 Manufacturing Skills and Training Study: “Out of Inventory: Skills Shortage Threatens Growth for US Manufacturing” http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/Accenture-2014-Manufacturing-Skills-Training.pdf




NOVEMBER 2014

75

Source: Northwest Georgia Regional Commission

Strategy W1.2

Conduct an assessment of historical, current, and projected future job needs, employment trends, and in-house training programs.

Responsible Parties: IMCP Workforce working group

Supporting Partners: Georgia Department of Labor (GDOL), GDEcD, Georgia Tech Enterprise Innovation Institute (EI²), Industry Partners (human resource reps)


Cost: Staff Time

Funding Sources: IMCP Implementation Planning Grant

Georgia Tech’s Center for Education Integrating Science, Mathematics and Computing (CEISMC) is also developing a sample curriculum that meets the standards for high schools who are not already partnered with technical colleges.

Source: University of British Columbia

Strategy W1.3

Expand the mechatronics certification at Northwest Georgia College and Career Academy to other career academies in the region. Develop multiple industry-recognized certifications at college and career academies in industrial systems, electronics, or electrical engineering to allow students to transition to immediate employment in a manufacturing career, or obtain partial tech college credit.

Responsible Parties: Northwest Georgia College and Career Academy with the Georgia Department of Education, and TCSG

Supporting Partners: Georgia Tech’s CEISMC, Industry partners, Manufacturers Skills Standards Council, GNTC

Time Frame: 1 - 2 years

Cost: Staff time

Funding Sources: TCSG




NOVEMBER 2014

76

The Great Promise Partnership (GPP) was formed in 2012 by the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA). In partnership with numerous community and business leaders, DCA developed Great Promise Partnership to help at-risk students complete their high school education while gaining real-world job skills, thus gaining the ability to build successful lives. By forming public/private partnerships in communities across Georgia, GPP is showing students that they have a place in Georgia’s economic future.

Strategy W1.4

Work with the Great Promise Partnership (GPP) to increase the number of high school internships between industry and local high schools.

Responsible Parties: Industry partners with local high schools, Great Promise Partnership

Supporting Partners: Local chambers of commerce, local colleges


Cost: Staff time

Funding Sources: WIA Funds

Source: Southwire Company, LLC

Strategy W1.5

Expand the high school co-op employment program (after school hours) during the school year. As part of the program, consider a small financial incentive or scholarship, and credit towards graduation.

Responsible Parties: Industry partners with local high schools, Great Promise Partnership

Supporting Partners: Local chambers of commerce, local colleges

Time Frame: 1 - 2 Years

Cost: Staff time

Funding Sources: WIA Funds, industry compensation




NOVEMBER 2014

77

Source: Southwire Company, LLC

Strategy W1.6

Develop a two-year apprenticeship program (during school hours) with college and career academies and participating employers. Credit is earned toward graduation and skills certificate. Apprenticeships are a combination of on-the-job training and related instruction in which workers learn the practical and theoretical aspects of a highly skilled occupation. The DOL’s Employment and Training Administration may supply a list of certified apprenticeships. These apprenticeships are designed for individuals beyond secondary education. Georgia work-based learning apprenticeships are available to high school students.

Leverage Georgia’s dual enrollment/dual credit program, which is available to Georgia high school students to take college-level courses and earn concurrent credit toward a high school diploma and a college degree. Currently, GNTC and NWGCCA offer a Chem Tech certificate, which is a dual enrollment program.

Responsible Parties: College and Career Academies with the Georgia Department of Education, TCSG

Supporting Partners: Industry partners, Great Promise Partnership


Cost: Staff time

Funding Sources: WIA Funds




NOVEMBER 2014

78

Source: GNTC

Strategy W1.7

Expand Georgia Northwestern Technical College (GNTC)offerings to include a new industry-based short-course, focused on the fundamentals of manufacturing and the floor covering process (3 pathways, industry-recognized certificate).

GNTC Whitfield/Murray Campus and Northwest Georgia College and Career Academy are working with Chemical Sector businesses in Northwest Georgia to implement a Chemical Technician program. Survey of businesses indicated a need for workforce development to meet the needs of the chemical industry. Industry leaders will assist in development of curriculum and plans for implementing the program. A course description will soon be available for this program of study.

GNTC is currently developing a tiered program for Manufacturing Production and Manufacturing Operations. Programs will include Technical Certificate of Credit: Manufacturing Production Associate; Advanced Technical Certificate: Manufacturing Production Technician; Associate of Applied Science: Manufacturing Operations. This program is designed for a student to progress through the programs of study in a seamless manner.

Responsible Parties: GNTC

Supporting Partners: Industry Partners, TCSG

Time Frame: 1 - 2 Years

Cost: $100k - $250K

Funding Sources: TCSG




NOVEMBER 2014

79

Best Practice: NYC’s Tech Talent Draft, Chattanooga’s “GeekMove” relocation incentive program

Source: NYC Tech Talent Draft

Strategy W1.8

Sponsor recruiting events at both high school and college level (bounty for “smart” recruitment).

Responsible Parties: Industry Partners with local high schools

Supporting Partners: GaMEP, Georgia Association of Manufacturers (GAM)

Time Frame: 1 year or less

Cost: Staff time

Funding Sources: Georgia Association of Manufacturers, private foundations, industry partners

Best Practice: “Tooling U” and American Welding Online

Source: Georgia Institute of Technology

Strategy W1.9

Provide digital learning experiences at local colleges and career academies, where applicable. Northwest Georgia College and Career Academy is already implementing digital learning in its programming.

Responsible Parties: GNTC, Dalton State College

Supporting Partners: National Manufacturing Institute, NAM-Endorsed Skills Certification System, GaMEP, Georgia Tech EI²

Time Frame: 1 year or less

Cost: Staff time to set up

Funding Sources: Federal Perkins funds, SME Education Foundation




NOVEMBER 2014

80

Source: Virginia Performs

Strategy W1.10

Develop a workforce assessment tool for college and career academies, colleges, industry to use to track where students are going, so the region’s workforce needs can be quickly targeted and addressed.

Responsible Parties: Eduity, IMCP Workforce working group

Supporting Partners: Georgia Tech EI²

Time Frame: 2 years

Cost: In-kind to pilot

Funding Sources: Individuals, private businesses, and workforce intermediaries (educational institutions, staffing agencies, etc.)

Source: FAST Track program

Strategy W1.11

Expand and promote Fast Track program. Launched in 2013, local industry, GDOL and GNTC collaborated to design a 10-week, full-time (40 hour a week) training program for incumbent workers to receive concentrated training in industrial systems. After the completion of this program, local business continue with on-the-job training of these individuals, or they may continue in the industrial systems program at GNTC. Some training is for incumbent workers while some unemployed individuals qualify for this training. To date, three cohort classes have completed the training. An important partnership and approach to workforce training, Fast Track should continue to be improved and built upon as part of IMCP.

Responsible Parties: GDOL, GNTC

Supporting Partners: Industry partners, chambers of commerce

Time Frame: On-going

Cost: Companies pay employee salary during training

Funding Sources: Industry partners




NOVEMBER 2014

81

Source: Georgia College and Career Academies

Strategy W1.12

Expand student access to college and career academies, marketing manufacturing career pathways to rural communities. Currently, college and career academies only serve a limited population within the county in which they’re located. By broadening the reach of a college and career academy to students in surrounding areas, more students would have the opportunity to get exposed to manufacturing related disciplines. Industry would have an incentive to invest resources in career academies that produce more graduates from around the region, not just from a single county.

Responsible Parties: TCSG, regional Boards of Education

Supporting Partners: Industry partners, Georgia College and Career Academy Network

Time Frame: 1 year (develop marketing plan)

Cost: Staff time to realign

Funding Sources: TCSG, private foundation funds, State of Georgia Department of Education grant funds

Objective W2: Train the region’s existing workforce, and attract skilled labor from outside the Northwest Georgia region.

Best Practice: Central Georgia Technical College has activated the Georgia Military and Veterans Education and Training Support Center in Warner Robins, Georgia, also known as the Gateway Center.

Strategy W2.1

Partner with Georgia Tech’s VET2 veteran hiring program to funnel transitioning military personnel into the civilian workforce in Northwest Georgia.

Responsible Parties: Georgia Tech Professional Education (Savannah campus)

Supporting Partners: Industry partners, Department of Defense installations in Georgia and transitioning military personnel


Cost: $100,000

Funding Sources: GDOL, TCSG




NOVEMBER 2014

82

Source: GDEcD Workforce Division

Strategy W2.2

Support Georgia’s High Demand Career Initiative (HDCI) by coordinating IMCP workforce program efforts with the GDEcD’s Workforce Division.

Responsible Parties: GDEcD workforce division, IMCP Workforce working group, local Chambers of Commerce

Supporting Partners: Private foundation partners, TCSG

Time Frame: 0 - 6 months

Cost: Staff time

Funding Sources: private foundation funds

Best Practice: Martin Health System, Kansas Rural Opportunity Zones, Chattanooga’s “Geek Move” relocation incentive program

Source: Kansas Department of Commerce

Strategy W2.3

Provide incentives for recent graduates to relocate from outside the region (e.g., tuition loan repayment program, mortgage assistance).

Responsible Parties: Chambers of Commerce

Supporting Partners: Industry partners


Cost: $100k - $250k

Funding Sources: private foundation funds




NOVEMBER 2014

83

Objective W3: Expand STEM-based education in the region’s primary and secondary schools.

Source: Film Athens, The Athens Banner-Herald

Best Practices: AJ Whittenburg Elementary (Greenville, SC) focused on STEM; Athens Community Career Academy and Athens Technical College partnership with Film Athens to create a film-making workforce in Georgia (Athens, GA).

Strategy W3.1

Re-focus the Northwest Georgia College and Career Academy on floor covering and advanced manufacturing career pathways. Track student movement from high schools to post-secondary education and/or employment. Design and implement pathways of study in regional career academies/technical high schools and post-secondary institutions and combine with work experience in the manufacturing setting that will prepare students for careers in manufacturing.

Responsible Parties: IMCP Workforce working group, Career Academy’s leadership, Boards of Education, Industry HR leadership within the industry, GDOL, Chambers of Commerce, GNTC

Supporting Partners: Industry partners, NWGRC (WIA/WOA)

Time Frame: 2 years

Cost: Staff time to develop

Funding Sources: Boards of Education, Industry partners, WIA funds

Best Practice: The Institute for Advanced Learning and Research, Danville VA

Source: Institute for Advanced Learning & Research

Strategy W3.2

Invest in a mobile STEM/engineering classroom and/or a mobile “maker space” that could travel to schools to provide hands-on learning opportunities for elementary and middle school students.

Responsible Parties: Local school districts

Supporting Partners: Industry partners, CEISMC, 7Hills Makerspace


Cost: $25k - $250k (depends on type of lab purchased, can be anything from a mobile STEM “cart” to a bus. Costs recouped with local school district rental fees for the lab over time)




NOVEMBER 2014

84

Funding Sources: State education grant funds, private foundation funds, a STEM fund created by local colleges

Best Practice: Gateway Academy

Source: Archway Partnership

Strategy W3.3

Expand existing Design, Engineering and Manufacturing (DEM) camp offerings.

Responsible Parties: Chambers of Commerce, industry partners

Supporting Partners: SME Education Foundation, National Association of Manufacturers, private foundation partners


Cost: Staff time


Best Practice: Griffin-Spalding County School System

Source: GT CEISMC Amp-It-Up Program

Strategy W3.4

Implement an “AMP It Up” program (Advanced Manufacturing and Prototyping Integrated to Unlock Potential) in local middle schools to enable students to explore their creativity and apply STEM knowledge using rapid prototyping equipment.

Responsible Parties: Georgia Tech CEISMC, local school systems

Supporting Partners: Industry partners, local jurisdictions


Cost: $500k to $1 Million

Funding Sources: NSF Math and Science Partnership grant




NOVEMBER 2014

85

Best Practice: Partners in Education program, East View Elementary School (Olean, NY)

Source: STEM Academy, Savannah, GA

Strategy W3.5

Implement an industry mentoring program to give elementary students soft skills and a subtle STEM foundation (1 hour/week industry commitment).

Responsible Parties: Local school systems



Cost: Staff time

Funding Sources: N/A

Objective W4: Retain existing industry through the quick and efficient response to changing industry needs.

Georgia’s Quick Start program is arguably one of the nation’s signature workforce training programs. There is a need to provide continual engagement with industry via a total workforce delivery service in the region, as workforce needs change throughout the life of the company – e.g., new certifications, new equipment, changing products or processes. As an extension of the Quick Start program, a total workforce delivery system for the region would help address these needs quickly and efficiently and provide continual, one-on-one engagement with a local workforce development professional who would work directly with industry on changing needs.

Best Practice: AIDT in Alabama (http://www.aidt.edu/services/), and Ready SC in South Carolina

Source: Apple

Strategy W4.1

Implement a “Total Workforce Delivery System” for industry (could serve as the online portal for all workforce resources in the region).

Responsible Parties: Georgia Workforce Development

Supporting Partners: Georgia Quick Start


Cost: $100k - $250k

Funding Sources: Pilot project, costs recouped by system users

INFRASTRUCTURE



NOVEMBER 2014

86

Objective I1: Support the sustainability and efficient use of utilities and water resources.

Water and electricity costs are the industry’s top expenditures, according to floor covering manufacturers. While many manufacturers have implemented their own sustainability plans, (which include water and energy reduction, designing all products according to “cradle to cradle” protocols, reducing carbon emissions from factories, and reducing total waste to landfills by 100 percent) incentives provided to commercial customers at the local level impact the bottom line, and may have an influence on a location or re-location decision. Georgia Power, Dalton Utilities, and North Georgia EMC are several of the local utility providers in Northwest Georgia.

Source: Georgia Power

Strategy I1.1

Provide incentives for low-use/low-cost utilities to industry (e.g., profit-sharing contract, sliding scale, cost recovery, waste to energy).

Responsible Parties: Dalton Utilities, Electric Cities of Georgia (ECG), Tri-State Electric Membership Corporation (TSEMC), Georgia Power



Cost: Staff time

Funding Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Objective I2: Invest in broadband infrastructure needed for sustainable advanced manufacturing growth.

Manufacturing is being transformed by digital technology. Digital technology is an investment in cost reduction. Floor covering manufacturers have made significant investments in equipment and software to make key processes more automated and efficient – but those investments are only as good as the workforce trained in using them. Manufacturers need digital connectivity more than ever, and more technically proficient workers, particularly in fields such as mechatronics/automation, programming, and engineering.

According to the Digital Economy Plan for the Northwest Georgia region, the region will have a difficult time developing and retaining workforce talent with technology skills without additional investment and understanding of its importance. Manufacturers are concerned that the demand for a technologically-proficient workforce will far outstrip supply in the region. The lack of awareness of technology opportunities in advanced manufacturing jobs in the region, coupled with the high concentration of technology-focused jobs (information technology, web design/programming, high-tech start-ups, and telecom) in neighboring metropolitan areas could make it difficult to attract and retain this talent, unless additional investments are made.

INFRASTRUCTURE



NOVEMBER 2014

87

Source: Shutterstock

Strategy I2.1

Support the strategies outlined in the “Digital Economy” plan for the region, including high-performance, “plug-and-play” network infrastructure and wifi access at industrial sites.

Responsible Parties: Georgia Technology Authority

Supporting Partners: NWGRC, TAG


Cost: N/A

Funding Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Source: Inc42 Magazine

Strategy I2.2

Develop resources to promote & support digital development. Make sure we have what we need to grow northwest Georgia’s digital economy, including expertise, financing, and marketing.

Develop a “Grow Digital” program to make investing in digital technology, particularly services and software, for top-line growth, a priority for manufacturing. Grow Digital can be anchored by SME manufacturers, particularly focusing on the floor covering and automotive industries.

Responsible Parties: Northwest Georgia Regional Commission (NWGRC)

Supporting Partners: Chambers of Commerce and other umbrella groups and technology/telecommunications companies

Time Frame: 1 -2 years

Cost: IMCP project “tech fund” allocated to digital projects (pending pilot)

Funding Sources: Participant fees and sponsors

INFRASTRUCTURE



NOVEMBER 2014

88

Objective I3: Develop and maintain transportation infrastructure to allow for efficient movement of materials and products throughout the region.

The Northwest Georgia region is well-served by a diverse transportation network. Air, rail, and interstate all serve manufacturers in the region. Due to the nature of various floor covering products, particularly textiles, products must be moved quickly from the region to the Port of Savannah in order to reliably serve overseas markets. Time saved in transit means a cost savings for manufacturers in getting their products to market. An inland port, with freight connectivity linking a service area with an approximate 75-mile radius around the Northwest Georgia region directly with Savannah, would not only alleviate interstate truck traffic through Atlanta, but could be a more strategic step in creating a larger multi-state logistics network in the region.

Source: Georgia Ports Authority

Strategy I3.1

Work with the Georgia Ports Authority to develop an inland port for the region.

Responsible Parties: Georgia Ports Authority

Supporting Partners: Railroad (CSX/NS), Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), State of Georgia, GDOT, local jurisdiction (situs)


Cost: $30 Million

Funding Sources: Georgia Ports Authority, Railroad (CSX/NS), ARC access road program, State of Georgia, GDOT TIGER funds, local jurisdictions

Source: US DOT, Port of Virginia

Best Practices: Memphis, Front Royal VA, Kansas City Smart Port

Strategy I3.2

Consider strategic regional development of the port, in the context of a larger innovation network and development.

Responsible Parties: Local jurisdiction (situs)

Supporting Partners: Georgia Ports Authority, Georgia Tech EI2


Cost: $250,000

Funding Sources: ARC, State of Georgia, DOT, local jurisdictions

INFRASTRUCTURE



NOVEMBER 2014

89

Source: GDOT

Strategy I3.3

Develop an east-west connector between I-75 in Northwest Georgia and I-85.

Responsible Parties: GDOT

Supporting Partners: Appalachian Regional Commission, local jurisdictions

Time Frame: 6 - 10 years to plan, more than 10 years to construct

Cost: approx. $6.5 Million per mile

Funding Sources: GDOT, federal sources, ARC (funds for Appalachian Highway System Development)

Source: Google Maps

Strategy I3.4

Continue Hwy. 411 as a four-lane road from of I -175 exit 293 (Chatsworth – White) on Hwy 411 in Georgia to the Tennessee line to allow for efficient truck movement and increased commerce between Northwest Georgia and east Tennessee (six-mile segment expansion from two to four-lanes). Widen Cass White Rd. between I-75 and Hwy. 411 in Cartersville to a four-lane road.

Responsible Parties: GDOT, Appalachian Regional Commission Local Access Road funds, TDOT GDOT

Supporting Partners: Local jurisdictions, Appalachian Regional Commission

Time Frame: Planning, 3 – 5 years; more than 5 years to construct

Cost: $3 Million per mile (approximately $18 Million)

Funding Sources: GDOT, Appalachian Regional Commission Local Access Road funds, TDOT

RESEARCH, INNOVATION, & SUSTAINABILITY



NOVEMBER 2014

90

Objective R1: Target the “greening” of the floor covering industry – technological advancements, drive toward sustainability, environmental stewardship, economic sustainability, and worldwide leadership in the floor covering industry.

Increasingly sophisticated technology in the floor covering industry has reduced the region’s carbon footprint. “Just-in-time” manufacturing and shipping has decreased storage and energy costs, and new production processes have reduced energy and water consumption. However, there is currently a lack of manufacturing startups to drive new innovative areas in the recycling of floor covering waste, new materials, and other technological areas given the potential of manufacturing startups to help revitalize the industry. Conversations on the subject of sustainability are crucial to the industry’s future. Business-to-business idea-sharing and collaborative education could be the right forum to start.

Source: SourceOne, EMS Framework

Strategy R1.1

Conduct an environmental management study (EMS) across the supply chain.

Responsible Parties: Georgia Tech EI2



Cost: $100k - $250k

Funding Sources: Industry partners, local jurisdictions

Source: American Floor Covering Alliance

Strategy R1.2

Launch a “Sustainability Expo” for the floor covering industry, with national and international reach.

Responsible Parties: CARE, American Floor covering Alliance



Cost: Private sponsorships to launch

Funding Sources: Private foundation funds, industry partners




NOVEMBER 2014

91

Objective R2: Leverage technical expertise in sustainability, materials, and energy research at state research institutions.

As a supporting partner in the Advanced Manufacturing Strategy, Georgia Tech can assist the Northwest Georgia region with leading capabilities in the area of fiber, polymer, and materials research and process improvement, including E3 (Energy, Economy and Environment) assistance, ISO 50001, and system energy assessments. Georgia Tech, along with Dalton State, Georgia Northwestern Technical College, the national industry carpet organization CARE, and the Carpet and Rug Institute are all partners in the effort to improve product transferability to other markets, and achieve the sustainability goals of the floor covering industry. Developing new technologies and dedicating a sustainability position in the region’s education system sets the stage to leverage advanced manufacturing research opportunities in floor covering technologies. While the development of new technologies may take years to bring to market, there are services that the GaMEP can provide to assist the floor covering industry in improving performance, lowering costs, and improving overall energy efficiency.

Source: Dalton State College

Strategy R2.1

Create an endowed chair position at Dalton State for Sustainable Engineering.

Responsible Parties: Dalton State College

Supporting Partners: Georgia Tech EI2

Time Frame: 1- 2 years

Cost: $2 Million

Funding Sources: Private sources


Strategy R2.2

Develop technologies to identify new recyclable materials.

Responsible Parties: Georgia Tech Institute for Materials (iMAT), SMEs

Supporting Partners: Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE), Industry partners, Georgia Tech EI2


Cost: More than $500k to develop, commercialize, launch

Funding Sources: Private foundation funds, industry partners, EPA




NOVEMBER 2014

92

Source: Dalton State College

Strategy R2.3

Expand Dalton State College’s course offerings in sustainability-related disciplines, including: Technology Management, Supply Chain Management, Business Analytics, and Chemistry.

Responsible Parties: Dalton State College



Cost: $100k to develop and staff each new program

Funding Sources: University System of Georgia

Source: GaMEP

Strategy R2.4

Increase GaMEP’s presence in site visits to floor covering OEMs and suppliers

Responsible Parties: GaMEP



Cost: Staff time





NOVEMBER 2014

93

Source: Georgia Institute of Technology, Materials Science and Engineering

Strategy R2.5

Identify three new materials research opportunities.

Responsible Parties: Georgia Tech iMAT

Supporting Partners: CARE, industry partners, Georgia Tech EI2


Cost: Staff time (potential doctoral student projects)

Funding Sources: Industry and university partners

Strategy R2.6

Conduct E3 and lean assessments with floor covering SMEs/suppliers.

Responsible Parties: GaMEP

Supporting Partners: SMEs/suppliers, Georgia Tech EI2


Cost: Staff time

Funding Sources: GaMEP

Source: GaMEP




NOVEMBER 2014

94

Objective R3: Support the professional development and global reach of the floor covering industry with internationally-recognized industry events.

Source: International Association for Six Sigma Certification

Strategy R3.1

Offer new energy management training courses in the region, including Lean Six Sigma Green Belt training.

Responsible Parties: Georgia Tech EI2, GaMEP

Supporting Partners: Dalton State College


Cost: Staff time to develop course content

Funding Sources: Georgia Tech, Dalton State College, course registrations

Source: Case Western, ASM Educational Symposium on Additive Manufacturing

Strategy R3.2

Host a global advanced manufacturing symposium.

Responsible Parties: Georgia Association of Manufacturers, the Carpet and Rug Institute (CRI)

Supporting Partners: Georgia Tech EI2, GaMEP, industry partners

Time Frame: 2 -3 Years

Cost: Staff time to develop, cost recovered through symposium registrations and booth sales

Funding Sources: Private foundation funds, industry sponsorships, possible funding through Centers for International Business Education grants




NOVEMBER 2014

95

Source: CEFGA Expo

Strategy R3.3

Host a national-level materials research conference.

Responsible Parties: American Floor Covering Alliance, CRI

Supporting Partners: iMAT, GNTC, Georgia Tech, CARE, industry partners


Cost: Staff time to develop, cost recovered through conference registrations and booth sales

Funding Sources: Possible funding through Centers for International Business Education grants

PARTNERSHIPS



NOVEMBER 2014

96

Objective P1: Develop alliances to strengthen future regional investment.

Northwest Georgia and the surrounding southeast Tennessee region have recently been the recipients of several concurrent planning studies. The Tennessee Valley “manufacturing community” – the “DRIVE for the Future” initiative - includes a 69 county area in Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia (seven counties in Northwest Georgia’s manufacturing community). DRIVE is focused on the automotive industry, but the end goal to increase jobs and investment in advanced manufacturing in the region is consistent with that of Northwest Georgia. In response to rapid manufacturing growth in the region, the Thrive 2055 initiative is a comprehensive planning effort for 16 counties in Tennessee, Georgia (five counties all in Northwest Georgia), and Alabama. Including both the DRIVE and Thrive 2055 representatives in the Northwest Georgia IMCP is critical to the growth of advanced manufacturing in the entire region.

Source: Thrive 2055 Region

Strategy P1.1

Support goals of regional initiatives, including the Tennessee Valley IMCP, and Thrive 2055 studies.

Responsible Parties: Georgia Tech EI2, NWGRC

Supporting Partners: Regional chambers of commerce


Cost: Staff time


Source: GDEcD

Strategy P1.2

Conduct international site visits with GDEcD to identify potential export and foreign direct investment opportunities.

Responsible Parties: GDEcD, local economic development and Chamber of Commerce partners



Cost: Staff time

Funding Sources: Regional EDOs and Chambers

PARTNERSHIPS



NOVEMBER 2014

97

Objective P2: Create the organizational structure to develop a “manufacturing hub” in Northwest Georgia (S-FLOR).

Using the research conducted on the floor covering industry and the Northwest Georgia region in this Advanced Manufacturing Strategy, including a strategic assessment, interviews with manufacturers, and research into best practice outcomes, the region could support an advanced manufacturing hub, focused on the floor covering industry. The research suggests that the floor covering cluster can expand dramatically given a regional/state-wide, synergistic approach which supports specific IMCP investment elements: (a) workforce and training, (b) research and innovation, (c) supplier networks, and (d) operational improvements. This synergistic approach supports the formation of the Northwest Georgia Center for Sustainable Floor Covering Innovation and Advanced Workforce Readiness (S-FLOR). This center would be the key linchpin in a multi-nodal, informal web of contributors from across the region.

S-FLOR would be the anchor for workforce training and host a satellite center of the Georgia Tech Manufacturing Institute (GTMI), a research center focused on promulgating advanced manufacturing in the region. Also within the region, S-FLOR will leverage resources from the Georgia Manufacturing Extension Partnership (GaMEP) in Rome, Georgia to the supplier network and flooring OEMs with guidance on operational improvements. Finally, a branch of the Georgia Center of Innovation for Manufacturing (COI-M) would be located in Dalton to support the infusion of innovation into the varied manufacturing process. Regional resources include manufacturing firms, suppliers, SME’s, entrepreneurs, colleges and career academies, the local education network, local governments, industry and trade associations, and research university resources at Georgia Tech

Outside of the region and on the Atlanta, Georgia campus of Georgia Tech, S-FLOR would be connected to research services provided from the central labs of GTMI, supporting a proposed satellite center in Dalton, and the technology transfer and technology scouting services of the Enterprise Innovation Institute. Also on the Georgia Tech campus, the Georgia Tech Institute for Materials (IMat) would support the cluster through research on advanced materials for floor covering applications.

S-FLOR would be designed to provide solutions for industry-driven questions, supply a technically apt workforce, and promote partnerships between university and industry in order to grow the floor covering cluster and other supporting advanced manufacturing industries in the region. Using the manufacturing community designation as the launch pad, S-FLOR’s informal, multi-nodal web or network would be focused around the activities at a center to be constructed on the Dalton campus of the GNTC. As the visible and tangible location for S-FLOR, this center will be responsible for coordinating the implementation of key projects to address the IMCP key investment elements.

PARTNERSHIPS



NOVEMBER 2014

98

Source: Georgia Tech Manufacturing Institute

Strategy P2.1

Create an advanced manufacturing center for the floor covering industry that provides training and equipment (S-FLOR). Other services include: commercialization assistance, incubator space, advanced materials research lab, energy studio, and R&D space.

Responsible Parties: GNTC, Dalton State, GTMI for staffing and grad students, GT iMAT for sponsored research

Supporting Partners: Georgia Center of Innovation for Manufacturing, industry partners

Time Frame: 5+ years

Cost: $10 Million

Funding Sources: University System of Georgia, TCSG, State of Georgia, Georgia Tech EI2, EDA

Objective P3: Support the location of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), suppliers, and entrepreneurs in the region.

Over the last 30 years, many of the smaller carpet and rug manufacturers have sold to one of three major firms in the region. Aside from the big three, other small and medium-sized manufacturers have found their niches, for example, in the high-end, commercial carpet market. These firms compete for price and product in the market, and stand to benefit the most from the implementation of the Advanced Manufacturing Strategy, in part via the manufacturing community designation. These firms have to work harder to protect confidentiality in their process, customer base, and supply chain/logistics as they compete for price and competition with the larger manufacturers.

The American Floor Covering Association lists 40 key suppliers to the carpet and floor covering industry, including equipment manufacturers, chemical and backing companies, printing, shipping and marketing services, and suppliers. Georgia is home to 26 of these suppliers (or 65 percent), but with the concentration of the largest floor covering firms in the world in the Northwest Georgia region, there is an opportunity to locate more of these suppliers closer to their customers. During interviews with manufacturers conducted as part of the Phase 1 IMCP assessment, manufacturers indicated that they primarily bought cotton-based fibers and packaging materials from suppliers located in the Northwest Georgia region or around the state, but materials such as some dyes, resins, and petroleum-based products were purchased outside the region.

PARTNERSHIPS



NOVEMBER 2014

99

Source: Industry Week, Interface

Strategy P3.1

Create a regional “supplier match program” that would encourage the use and location of suppliers in the region.

Responsible Parties: GaMEP, local Chambers of Commerce

Supporting Partners: Industry partners, NWGRC, Georgia Tech EI2


Cost: Staff time

Funding Sources: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

Source: Georgia Tech Research Institute

Task: Conduct Phase 2 of the incubator feasibility study.

Strategy P3.2

Support the development of a business incubator at S-FLOR geared toward advanced manufacturing companies.

Responsible Parties: City of Dalton, UGA Archway

Supporting Partners: Georgia Tech, Greater Dalton Chamber of Commerce


Cost: $100k - $250k (from feasibility study to launch)

Funding Sources: SBA

PARTNERSHIPS



NOVEMBER 2014

100

Objective P4: Enable industry to seamlessly engage with the education system at every level.

During a site visit to the Clemson University International Center for Automotive Research (CU-ICAR) as part of the Advanced Manufacturing Strategy’s best practice research, the delegation from Northwest Georgia learned that equipment donations were matched by the state. CU-ICAR grew out of a need for engineering capability in the state to support a key sector, automotive engineering. Through the state’s creation of the Research Infrastructure Act, it allowed the state match donations to university, including in-kind equipment. This proved a win-win-win for the state, university, and industry. ICAR has since attracted 20 international automotive companies to its Greenville, South Carolina campus.

Source: Georgia Center of Innovation

Strategy P4.1

Develop a manufacturing equipment donation tax credit for new/used equipment donation.

Responsible Parties: State of Georgia

Supporting Partners: Georgia Association of Manufacturers, Industry partners, local elected officials, GDEcD


Cost: Staff time



Strategy P4.2

Invite career academy manufacturing student teams to accompany industry partners at product/industry conventions or expo events.

Responsible Parties: Industry partners, local school systems

Supporting Partners: Georgia Association of Manufacturers, CRI, American Floor covering Alliance


Cost: Staff time


PARTNERSHIPS



NOVEMBER 2014

101

Objective P5: Provide outlets for High school students to get hands-on experience with advanced manufacturing equipment.

Classrooms in the traditional school setting have largely dropped basic applied skills classes like shop, in exchange for theory-based courses and measuring student aptitude via standardized testing. Schools are providing a homogeneous style of learning to a diverse student population, and are being denied the opportunity to learn a skilled trade and get exposure to a potential career in advanced manufacturing. In addition, it sends a message to students that these skills are not/will not be valued in the real world, and with hundreds of open manufacturing positions in Northwest Georgia (let alone around the country), this is simply not the case. Hands-on opportunities should be created through this Advanced Manufacturing Strategy to let students know that these skills are valuable, not just for their tactical proficiency, but for practical problem-solving and real world application that the region’s employers so desperately need.

Source: Great Promise Partnership, Beaulieu

Best Practice: Great Promise Partnership (Beaulieu, Honda Lock, HON), Southwire

Strategy P5.1

Expand the Great Promise Partnership to benefit high school students to establish a Great Promise Partnership and/or “GPP WorkPrep” model for at-risk youth. Create a standalone samples lab at S-FLOR where industry commits to producing a percentage of its samples out of that training facility. The goal is to enroll 50 students by 2015.

Responsible Parties: Great Promise Partnership, Industry partners, Local school systems



Cost: None

Funding Sources: None

PARTNERSHIPS



NOVEMBER 2014

102

Best Practice: Georgia Tech Invention Studio


Strategy P5.2

Build an “invention studio” located at the advanced manufacturing hub (S-FLOR) using donated equipment from industry.

Responsible Parties: Advanced Manufacturing Consortium

Supporting Partners: GT CEISMC, Industry partners, Georgia Tech


Cost: $500,000 - $1 Million

Funding Sources: ARC grant funding

Source: 7Hills Maker Space

Strategy P5.3

Partner with the 7Hills Maker Space or create a new community manufacturing-focused maker space, where students/parents, the community at large, and industry professionals can interact through hands-on experiences and competitions.

Responsible Parties: Local “maker club” as part of high school



Cost: Less than $100k

Funding Sources: Company sponsorships (like Lowe’s Toolbox for Education, ING Unsung Heros,) DOE grants, crowd funding, private donations for equipment.

PARTNERSHIPS



NOVEMBER 2014

103

Source: GT CEISMC

Best Practice: CEISMC InVenture Challenge at Georgia Tech; Deep Orange, CU-ICAR

Strategy P5.4

Create middle and high school student design competitions to solve a client or industry problem, from concept to product.

Responsible Parties: Industry partners, local school system educators

Supporting Partners: Chambers of Commerce, Georgia Tech EI2


Cost: Staff time

Funding Sources: Private grants or foundation funds (scholarships or prizes for winning teams)

MARKETING



NOVEMBER 2014

104

Objective M1: Improve the image of 21st century manufacturing as a smart and viable career choice.

For many career-ready students, manufacturing is often an after-thought as a career choice, rather than a first thought. A survey by the Manufacturing Institute finds that while people believe that manufacturing is critical for a strong economy, it ranks as one of the last career choices among the 18-24 year old population. Americans fear the loss of manufacturing jobs to other countries, contributing to the sense that manufacturing is an unstable career choice.13 In addition, the perception of manufacturing as the dirty, low-wage factories of decades past feeds the perception that there is a lack of quality of life in the workplace. Nearly 80 percent of the national manufacturing workforce is between the ages of 45 and 65, and only 25 percent of the workforce is under age 30.14 This public perception of manufacturing is a real problem, and has to change among school-aged youth if we expect to close the manufacturing skills gap. This means marketing manufacturing as a viable career choice to their needs and interests – technology, innovation, upward mobility, and high-paying jobs.

Source: Thinkstock

Strategy M1.1

Convene a focus group made up of educators and school counselors to explore how to market the advanced manufacturing career path to educators, parents, and students.

Responsible Parties: Local school systems, AMP 2.0

Supporting Partners: CRI, Industry partners


Cost: Staff time


13 http://www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/~/media/2AB778520C734D888156A90B667C1E70.ashx14 Technology Transforms Manufacturing Into A Hotbed Of Innovation: Manufacturers Must Address a Ticking “Biological Clock” to

Realize Growth. September 2013. Online: http://www.thomasnet.com/pressroom/Industry_Market_Barometer.html

MARKETING



NOVEMBER 2014

105

Best Practice: 360° Manufacturing and Applied Engineering Center of Excellence http://www.360mn.org/

Source: 360° Manufacturing and Applied Engineering Center of Excellence

Strategy M1.2

Partner with a “Career Me Manufacturing,” “Dream It, Do It,” “I Make America’ to promote industrial education program offerings in the region. Career Me is a non-profit information portal for young people in grades 11–14, providing them with positive information about careers in advanced manufacturing. The goal is to promote careers in advanced manufacturing targeted at students and their parents, high school teachers, career counselors, and college faculty.

Responsible Parties: Consortium between NWGRC, GNTC, Dalton State University, Georgia Tech EI2

Supporting Partners: NSF, NAM, SME (Society of Manufacturing Engineers), Chambers of Commerce, local jurisdictions


Cost: Staff time

Funding Sources: Varies by program type - minimal cost for a partnership like “Career Me” but more costly for a state or region-specific, ground-up program. NSF Advanced Technological Education (ATE) grant for a $750k or more project.

Best Practice: Georgia Intern Fellowships for Teachers (GIFT) program, CBIA Education Foundation.

Strategy M1.3

Implement a “teachers in industry” program, Industry “open doors” for even short, 2-3 hour tours for teachers on staff development days, or pay for summer hours to educate teachers and high school counselors on the importance of the region’s manufacturing base.

Responsible Parties: Local school systems, AMP 2.0

Supporting Partners: CRI, Industry partners


Cost: $5,000 - $7,500 per teacher, per summer


MARKETING



NOVEMBER 2014

106

Best Practice: Georgia Intern Fellowships for Teachers (GIFT) program, CBIA Education Foundation.

Source: CBIA Education Foundation

Strategy M1.5

Host a “Manufacturing Day” event for parents, grandparents, middle and high school students, and teachers to interact with industry.

Responsible Parties: Local school system, Chambers of Commerce


Time Frame: 1 year

Cost: Staff time


Source: Go Build Georgia

Strategy M1.6

Promote the “Go Build Georgia” campaign in schools, along with peer-to-peer learning to communicate career opportunities and advancement potential in advanced manufacturing.

Responsible Parties: NWGRC, college and career academies

Supporting Partners: TCSG, industry partners, GNTC, Dalton State University

Time Frame: 1 year

Cost: Staff time

Funding Sources: Governor’s Office of Workforce Development, Go Build Georgia Foundation

MARKETING



NOVEMBER 2014

107

Source: Shaw Industries

Strategy M1.7

Market the changing face of the floor covering industry; the focus and use of technology in manufacturing, integration of design and emphasis on the “user experience” and sustainability in practice.

Responsible Parties: CARE, American Floorcovering Alliance


Time Frame: 1 year

Cost: Less than $50,000 for marketing materials and distribution

Funding Sources: Private foundation funds, EPA


Strategy M1.8

Market the success of current regional and national best practice internship and apprenticeship programs to industry.

Responsible Parties: IMCP Marketing Working Group

Supporting Partners: Great Promise Partnership, Chambers of Commerce, industry partners

Time Frame: 1 year

Cost: Staff time


MARKETING



NOVEMBER 2014

108

Source: Mass-TEC

Strategy M1.9

Show the financial costs/benefits of the advanced manufacturing education/career path versus other disciplines. Enforce potential tuition savings and earning potential.

Responsible Parties: GaMEP, Georgia Tech EI2

Supporting Partners: Industry partners, local school systems


Cost: Staff time


Strategy M1.10

Market and brand the “IMCP Advanced Manufacturing Consortium” as the implementing organization for this Advanced Manufacturing Strategy. Promote the Consortium to all beneficiaries of IMCP (regional manufacturers, educators, local elected officials, state and regional partners, other Manufacturing Communities, EDA, etc.).

Responsible Parties: NWGRC, Dalton Chamber of Commerce, Georgia Tech EI2

Supporting Partners: Industry partners, local school systems

Time Frame: 3 - 6 months

Cost: Staff time


Source: Northwest Georgia Regional Commission



NOVEMBER 2014

109

STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATIONDue to the strong resurgence in the floor covering industry and advanced manufacturing in the region along with the IMCP project to further strengthen the region’s competitiveness, stakeholders understood the importance of building on that momentum being generated, and the need to move quickly from strategy to project implementation.

The Manufacturing Community DesignationAn Implementation Committee was formed to be the guiding body and sounding board on implementation efforts that result from this Advanced Manufacturing Strategy. Working groups were formed from the Implementation Committee, to serve as the process leaders to delve deeper into each goal area and lay the groundwork for key implementation projects. These working groups are stakeholder-driven - meaning, the groups set their own meeting schedules and obtain resources to meet their respective project milestones independently - pulling resources in from the NWGRC and Georgia Tech as needed. Each working group is led by a member of the Implementation Committee, and reports back to the larger committee on the periodic results and progress of the group, where they receive feedback and become informed of the progress of the other working groups.

Project funding is a critical part of the implementation process. While funding is not guaranteed, one of the primary advantages of the Manufacturing Community designation is that communities can receive elevated consideration for one of a number of IMCP-aligned programs through EDA’s partner agencies (Appendix C gives additional details on each of the IMCP federally-aligned programs). The Manufacturing Community designation in the Northwest Georgia region will cultivate the environment for highly skilled, well-paying jobs in the region’s already solid manufacturing base. The benefits of the Manufacturing Community designation in the Northwest Georgia will allow the region to leverage future federal funding opportunities to assist in the launch of key implementation projects, access cross-disciplinary resources with other EDA partner agencies, and use the designation to attract additional business investment in the region.

Currently, EDA has 10 programs with its partner agencies that align with IMCP (additional programs may be included as the IMCP program evolves). As the funding cycles for these programs are announced, Manufacturing Communities are encouraged to apply for funding relative to applicable portions of their strategies. Table 41 shows that the Northwest Georgia region could use eight out of the 10 aligned programs in some capacity, relative to the goals, objectives, and strategies outlined in this Advanced Manufacturing Strategy.



NOVEMBER 2014

110

Table 41: IMCP Aligned Programs Applicable to the Northwest Georgia Advanced Manufacturing Strategy

IMCP Aligned Program (current as of October

2014)

Northwest Georgia Strategy Goal AreaWorkforce Training & Education

InfrastructureResearch,

Innovation & Sustainability

Partnerships Marketing

Appalachian Regional Commission -(local access road program, Area Development Program)Delta Regional Authority – State’s Economic Development Assistance Program (SEDAP)*US Dept. Housing and Urban DevelopmentUS Dept. Labor – Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training programUS Dept. Transportation – Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER)US Environmental Protection Agency – brownfield programsNational Science Foundation – Advanced Technology Education (ATE), Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRC)Small Business Administration – Accelerator ProgramUS Dept. Agriculture – Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program (REDLG), Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program (RBEG), various loan programsUS Dept. Defense – Defense Industry Adjustment (DIA)*

*Georgia is not located within the purview of the Delta Regional Authority, and is therefore not eligible for this program. In addition, there are no DOD facilities (current or historic) in the region, and it is therefore not eligible to use this program.

Next StepsAt the conclusion of the Advanced Manufacturing Strategy, the NWGRC will facilitate implementation of the strategy with its key partners, to ensure that the benefits of the Manufacturing Community designation are realized as soon as possible. The designation extends through June 2016, at which time, EDA will review how well the region implemented projects that align with this strategy, maximize the benefits of the designation, and strengthen advanced manufacturing overall in the region.



NOVEMBER 2014

111

Immediate next steps include:

1. Formalization, Branding and Marketing of the IMCP Consortium. The Northwest Georgia region received both letters of support and commitment during the Manufacturing Community proposal process. After EDA awarded the designation to Northwest Georgia, EDA determined that those entities that wrote letters of commitment (specifying a monetary amount of support or some in-kind service) would be included in the region’s Advanced Manufacturing “Consortium.” Groups included in the Consortium are eligible to apply for IMCP program funds through the NWGRC. As the lead agency for the designation, the NWGRC will develop Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with each of the Consortium members. The Consortium should serve as the implementing organization for IMCP, being an easily recognizable face and brand for the project. The Consortium will carry out the vision and mission of the IMCP Advanced Manufacturing Strategy. The NWGRC and its partners will market the group and its mission based on EDA’s six key elements for a healthy industrial ecosystem, create a recognizable brand for the Consortium, and will promote the Consortium via a network of in-person and online communication channels, including a stand-alone website.

2. Establish Implementation Road Map. The NWGRC, the Advanced Manufacturing Consortium, and other partners should create a pathway or “road map” and timeline for implementing projects defined in this strategy in five areas designed to address gaps in the current ecosystem. Building upon the projects recommended in this Advanced Manufacturing Strategy, the Implementation Road Map will be the guide by which the NWGRC and its key partners can bring the critical elements together to ensure that it is maximizing the benefits of the Manufacturing Community designation - from the identification of responsible and supporting parties, to the tasks needed to implement the project, to the identification of the funding partners and agencies, along with the timing for responding to various funding cycles so that projects are deployed in the most efficient manner possible - so that the Advanced Manufacturing Consortium can make the business case for projects to funding partners, manufacturers in the floor covering industry and their suppliers, local government partners, elected officials, and stakeholders.

3. Continue Stakeholder Involvement. Because the Implementation Committee and working groups were formed during the planning phase, these groups should continue meeting and working toward project implementation in each of the five goal areas. In addition, the NWGRC should continue to provide project updates and receive feedback from the region’s federal liaison at the ARC. A Communication and Outreach Plan, as well as a Meeting Plan should be developed to provide critical information of the project’s progress and gather feedback via regular check-ins with stakeholder groups.

4. Performance Metrics and Project Impacts. Performance metrics and goals are used to gauge the effectiveness of this strategy and to track the community’s efficacy in closing key gaps in the region’s industrial ecosystem. These metrics will also provide transparency to the program’s operation and equip the project team with key information to improve the program and its outcomes. A performance management approach will need to be implemented that seeks an optimal balance between compliance and program improvement. For each program area, metrics to be measured and tracked include (1) short-term outcomes, (2) intermediate outcomes and (3) long-term outcomes for the 24-month Manufacturing Community designation period as well as the five-year initial Advanced Manufacturing Strategy period. Performance metrics will be collected from a variety of sources to include activity reports, client surveys and interviews, and independent third-party data sources, and will need to be reported to show impact across the six key investment elements that comprise a complete and healthy industrial ecosystem, as defined by EDA.



NOVEMBER 2014

112

APPENDIX A: RESOURCES

Accenture, & The Manufacturing Institute. (2014). Out of inventory: Skills shortage threatens growth for US manufacturing. 2014 Manufacturing Skills and Training Study. Allison, D. (2013). Georgia’s top economic development stories of 2013. Atlanta Business Chronicle.

Battelle Technology Partnership Practice. (2011). Iowa advanced manufacturing industry cluster.

Center for Economic Development Services. (1999). Innovative local economic development programs. Georgia Institute of Technology.

Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness. (n.d.). Workforce data for Georgia’s Work Ready Regions.

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. (2013). Metropolitan Chicago’s manufacturing cluster: A drill-down report on innovation, workforce, and infrastructure.

Community and Economic Development. (2005). NWGRC regional comprehensive economic development strategy. Northwest Georgia Regional Commission.

The Council for Community and Economic Research. (2011). Northwest Georgia Advanced Manufacturing (East) Work Ready Region.

Deloitte, & Manufacturing Institute. (2011). Boiling point? The skills gap in U.S. manufacturing.

Deloitte, & Manufacturing Institute. (2012). Leadership wanted: U.S. public opinions on manufacturing.

Economist Intelligence Unit . (2011). Fostering innovation-led clusters: A review of leading global practices. The Economist. Enterprise Innovation Institute. (2012). Business incubator community readiness assessment. Georgia Intitute of Technology.

Federally Funded Cluster Initiatives

Fikri, K., & Muro, M. (2011). Job creation on a budget: How regional industry clusters can add jobs, bolster entrepreneurship, and spark innovation. State and Metropolitan Innovation. Brookings Institute. Georgia Department of Economic Development. (2013). Georgia’s floor covering industry.

Georgia Career Academies (Program)

Georgia Power. (n.d.). NW region by the numbers.

Georgia Tech Program in Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy. (2014). Innovation in manufacturing: Needs, practices, and performance in Georgia 2012-2014. Georgia Institute of Technology.

Greater Richmond Partnership, Inc. (2012). Greater Richmond, Virginia: Advanced manufacturing.

Go Build Georgia (Program)

Helms, M. M., & Baxter, J. T. (2005). The U.S. floorcovering industry - 2006. Dalton State College.

Hill, E. (2005). Advanced manufacturing and cluster based development policies: Thinking clearly about innovation and the future of American manufacturing. Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University.



NOVEMBER 2014

113

Johnson, L. A., Helms, M. M., & Baxter J. T. (2010). Assessing financial performance during a period of rapid expansion. Mohawk Industries, Inc.

Laudeman, G. (n.d.). Dalton area workforce development and the floor covering Industry: A strategic assessment.

ManpowerGroup. (2005). Manpower identifies persistent talent shortages as top driver of changes in workforce strategies among U.S. employers.

Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation, & Southern Governors’ Association. (n.d.). Advanced manufacturing in the American South: An economic analysis supporting regional development.

The Manufacturing Institute. (2012). Roadmap for manufacturing education: Recommendations for action: Promoting industry certifications and enhancing two- and four-year articulation.

Milstein Commission on New Manufacturing. (2014). Building a nation of makers. The Miller Center, University of Virginia.

National Governors Association Policy Academy. (2013). Making our future: What states are doing to encourage growth in manufacturing through innovation, entrepreneurship, and investment.

National Science and Technology Council. (2012). A national strategic plan for advanced manufacturing. Executive Office of the President.

Northwest Georgia Regional Commission. (2012). Northwest Georgia regional plan 2013-2033: Regional assessment part 4: Supporting analysis of data and information.

Northwest Georgia Regional Educational Service Authority

Office of Labor Planning and Analysis. (2012). New Jersey’s advanced manufacturing cluster. New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development.

Ratcliff, A. (2013). Department of Defense-Led Manufacturing Innovation Institutes. Department of Defence Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy.

Rugaber, C. S. (2013). U.S. manufacturing expands at best pace in 2-1/2 years. The Associated Press.

Seebode, D., & Harkin G. (2009). Radical innovation at Philips Lighting. Managing Innovation, Case Studies.

Selig Center for Economic Growth. (2014). Georgia manufacturing outlook.

Southerland, R. (2013). Manufacturing will help boost 2014 job growth. Atlanta Business Chronicle.

SRI International. (2009). Making an impact; Assessing the benefits of Ohio’s investment in technology-based economic development programs: Industry and company case studies.

Textile Industry Announcements 2013

Thrive 2055 (Program)

Timian, J. (2013). New Jersey’s advanced manufacturing cluster. Office of Labor Planning and Analysis, New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development.

United States Department of Commerce, & The National Economic Council. (2012). The competitiveness and innovative capacity of the United States.



NOVEMBER 2014

114

United States Economic Development Administration. (n.d.). Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership.

White, M.C., & Sun, W. (2005). Northwest Georgia Advanced Manufacturing Region. Georgia Work Ready Regions.

Youtie, J. (n.d.). Carpet industry, Dalton, Georgia USA: Path dependency and lock-in v. resurgence and transformation. Enterprise Innovation Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology.

Youtie, J. (2010). Regional innovation clusters. Enterprise Innovation Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology.

Youtie, J. , Shapira P., Dodonova, D., Beckerman, A. (2012). 2012 Georgia manufacturing survey: Enabling manufacturers to compete in the global economy. Enterprise Innovation Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology.



NOVEMBER 2014

115

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW ANALYSISInternal Stakeholders Interview AnalysisThe internal stakeholder interview analysis resulted in responses from 36 unique respondents, representing the floor covering industry, allied industries, other local manufacturers, professional associations, and the local educational system. It is important to note that though all 36 stakeholders were asked the same series of questions, the total number of responses may not be equivalent to the total number of internal stakeholders interviewed for the following reasons: (1) interviewees could decline to respond to a question, resulting in fewer total responses; or (2) interviewees may have provided responses that fell into more than one response-category, resulting in a total number of responses exceeding the number of stakeholders interviewed.

Q1: Stakeholder Demographics Figure 26: Respondent Industry

Of the internal stakeholders interviewed, 44.4 percent were employed in the floor covering manufacturing industry. Internal stakeholder interviews also included representatives from suppliers/allied industry (22.2 percent); the local education system (19.4 percent); other manufacturers (11.1 percent); and professional associations (2.8 percent).

Q2: How do you think [floor covering] manufacturing has fared in the region over the last three years (i.e., “post” recession)?

In general, internal stakeholders reported that the manufacturing industry, particularly floor covering, fared well in the three years post-recession, with over 70 percent of the responses describing the industry as rebounding (34.9 percent), adapting (26.5 percent), and/or growing (10.8 percent) post-recession.

Table 42: Industry Response Post-Recession

Industry Response Total Percentage RankRebounding 29 34.9% 1Adapting 22 26.5% 2Growing 9 10.8% 3Declining/Consolidating 8 9.6% 4Uneven/Mixed Impact 8 9.6% 4Other 4 4.8% 5Fair/Stable 3 3.6% 6Total Number of Responses 83

Q3: What have the strengths of [floor covering] manufacturing been over this period?

While internal stakeholders cited varied industry strengths, over a third (33.7 percent) of the responses



NOVEMBER 2014

116

described economic and market advantages that contributed to the industry’s stability over the last three years, including continued demand for floor covering products, market competitiveness, economies of scale, and brand recognition, among others. Closely following the reported favorable economic and market conditions, were the research and innovation strengths and sustainability of the industry, as noted in 31.4 percent of the responses collected.

Table 43: Industry Strengths Post-Recession

Industry Strengths Total Percentage RankEconomic/ Market Conditions 29 33.7% 1Sustainability/ Research/ Innovation 27 31.4% 2Talent/ Workforce/ Education 10 11.6% 3Leadership/ Corp. Culture 9 10.5% 4Infrastructure 6 7.0% 5Partnerships 4 4.7% 6Industry Support 1 1.2% 7Total Number of Responses 86

Q4: What have the weaknesses of [floor covering] manufacturing been over this period?

The internal interview stakeholder analysis revealed that many of the attributes considered to be strengths in the industry, also had components which could use improvement. Therefore, many of the above industry “strengths” also appeared in the interviewees comments on the “weaknesses” of the industry.

The dominant weaknesses reported by the internal stakeholders of the floor covering industry fell under the umbrella of workforce development, education, and talent acquisition, composing 37.5 percent of the responses given. Though the area workforce was previously acknowledged as a strength to the local industry, interviewees also recognized areas of weakness, including a shortage in high-skilled labor, difficulty in attracting mid- and upper-level talent, and a lack of soft skills development.

As the industry experienced some favorable economic and market conditions, as previously reported by internal stakeholders, economic and market variables were cited in one-quarter of the responses as a weakness for the industry, including: the industry link to the construction/housing sector, high material costs, and restricted access to capital, among others.

Internal stakeholders also noted weaknesses stemming from larger issues of leadership and corporate culture (17.9 percent), and negative perceptions and ineffective marketing of the industry (10.7 percent).

Table 44: Industry Weaknesses Post-Recession

Industry Weaknesses Total Percentage RankTalent/ Workforce/ Education 21 37.5% 1Economic/ Market Conditions 14 25.0% 2Leadership/ Corporate Culture 10 17.9% 3Perception/ Marketing 6 10.7% 4Other 3 5.4% 5Infrastructure 2 3.6% 6Total Number of Responses 56

Q5: What can the Northwest Georgia region do to improve the following areas in [floor covering] manufacturing?



NOVEMBER 2014

117

Q5.A: Workforce and Training

The majority of responses (59.5 percent) indicated that building partnerships, especially between the education system and industry partners, would be beneficial in strengthening workforce development and training. Initiatives aimed at engaging youth, parents, and educators in the floor covering industry ranked second, composing 32.4 percent of the responses, followed by targeted skills development (29.7 percent), improvements to recruitment and marketing efforts (18.9 percent), and the strengthening of existing assets and programs (18.9 percent).

Table 45: Suggested Focus Areas for Improving Workforce Development and Training

Improving Workforce Development and Training Total Percentage RankPartnerships 22 59.5% 1Engage Youth/ Parents/ Educators 12 32.4% 2Skill development 11 29.7% 3Recruitment/ marketing 7 18.9% 4Strengthen existing assets 7 18.9% 4Total Number of Responses 37

Q5.B: Supplier Networks

Responses to improving the supplier network of the industry were less defined. While over a third of the responses indicated that the supplier network could benefit from further growth and education of network partners, 30 percent of the responses indicated that “nothing” needed to be improved in this area. Fostering research, innovation, and sustainability of suppliers in the network accounted for 20 percent of the responses, while the remaining responses noted quality of life improvements/incentives (10 percent) and advancements to workforce development (5 percent).

Table 46: Suggested Focus Areas for Improving Supplier Networks

Improving Supplier Networks Total Percentage RankBuild/educate network 7 35.0% 1Nothing 6 30.0% 2Sustainability/ Research/ Innovation 4 20.0% 3Quality of life improvements/incentives 2 10.0% 4Workforce development 1 5.0% 5Total Number of Responses 20

Q5.C: Small and Medium Sized Firms

Interview responses regarding the improvements to aid in addressing the needs of small and medium enterprises were varied, however, over a third of responses (37.5 percent) discussed the need to increase access to resources for SMEs. Remaining responses including strengthening training (16.7 percent), encouraging diversity/competitiveness (12.5 percent), improving recruiting/marketing initiatives (8.3 percent), and building partnerships (4.2 percent). “Other” responses (25 percent) included pursuing a small business incubator effort, strengthening industry-research institution partnerships, and improving manufacturing processes, among others.



NOVEMBER 2014

118

Table 47: Suggested Focus Areas for Improving the Experience of Small and Medium Businesses

Improving the Experience of SMEs Total Percentage RankIncrease access to resources 9 37.5% 1Other 6 25.0% 2Strengthen training 4 16.7% 3Encourage diversity/ competitiveness 3 12.5% 4Recruitment/ marketing 2 8.3% 5Total Number of Responses 24

Q5.D: Research and Innovation

Nearly half (45.5 percent) of the responses of internal stakeholders with regard as to how to improve research and innovation among the floor covering industry focused on developing and strengthening partnerships. Suggested improvements also included increasing research and development investment (18.2 percent), focusing research and innovation efforts on sustainability (13.6 percent), and strengthening existing assets (9.1 percent). “Other” responses included addressing intellectual property (IP) issues around industry-research institution collaboration and the targeted promotion of industry opportunities to attract talent.

Table 48: Suggested Focus Areas for Improving Research and Innovation

Improving Research and Innovation Total Percentage RankPartnerships 10 45.5% 1Increase R+D investment 4 18.2% 2Sustainability/ Research/ Innovation 3 13.6% 3Other 3 13.6% 3Strengthen existing assets 2 9.1% 4Total Number of Responses 22

Q5.E: Exporting, Trade, and International Investment

Suggested improvements to strengthen exporting, trade, and international investment in the industry included infrastructure improvements (26.3 percent), exporting/trade process improvements (21.1 percent), relationship/partnership building (15.8 percent), focusing efforts on attracting foreign direct investment (10.5 percent), and increased research and innovation improved sustainability of products and export processes (10.5 percent). “Other” responses included continuing efforts to shorten supply chains and offering support to SMEs to enable greater export activity.

Table 49: Suggested Focus Areas for Improving to Exporting, Trade, and International Investment

Improving Exporting and Trade Total Percentage RankInfrastructure Improvements 5 26.3% 1Improve existing processes 4 21.1% 2Other 3 15.8% 3Partnerships 3 15.8% 4Attract FDI 2 10.5% 4Sustainability/ Research/ Innovation 2 10.5% 4Total Number of Responses 19

Q5.F: Access to Capital Improvements



NOVEMBER 2014

119

Nearly half (47.6 percent) of the internal stakeholders interviewed did not perceive any difficulties with access to capital. However, for those that did feel access could be improved, increasing access to financial resources and products for industry partners, SMEs, and international companies alike through lower cost capital, lower interest rates, and bank flexibility were cited by 23.8 percent of the responses as a primary concern. Responses also included offering regional and local incentives (9.5%). “Other” responses (9.5 percent) included increasing the debt-to-worth ratio of companies to improve their attractiveness to lenders and developing partnerships across companies.

Table 50: Suggested Focus Areas for Improving Access to Capital

Improving Access to Capital Total Percentage RankNot an issue 10 47.6% 1Increase access to resources 5 23.8% 2Offer incentives 2 9.5% 3Unknown 2 9.5% 3Other 2 9.5% 4Total Number of Responses 21

Q6: We discussed the possibility for Manufacturing R&D Center for the [floor covering] industry, with the following as potential elements to include: • Workforce and training • Supplier network • Research and innovation • Export and trade assistance • Incubator/entrepreneurship space • Maker space (hands on learning, high school and younger) • Invention studio (high school grads and older) • Neutral networking space • Space for small and medium size enterprises (SME’s) • Technical college/university students, instructors, and support staff.

Q6.A: Which areas are opportunities for collaboration?

Interviewees were asked to consider which of the areas listed above offered opportunities for collaboration in the development of a manufacturing R+D Center for the floor covering industry. Over 40 percent of responses viewed initiatives around workforce development, training, and education as a key area for collaboration. Physical assets, including invention studios, maker spaces, incubator spaces, and neutral networking spaces, were mentioned in 17.7 percent of the responses. Industry support, including export/trade assistance and support for the supplier network, were cited in 16.5 percent of the responses. Additional areas of collaboration include sustainability research and innovation (13.9 percent), partnership development (7.6 percent), and marketing activities to improve the perception of the industry (1.3%).

Table 51: Opportunities for Collaboration for Potential Manufacturing R+D Center

Opportunities for Collaboration Total Percentage RankTalent/ Workforce/ Education 34 43.0% 1Physical Assets/ Space 14 17.7% 2Industry Support 13 16.5% 3Sustainability/ Research/ Innovation 11 13.9% 4Partnerships 6 7.6% 5Perception/ Marketing 1 1.3% 6Total Number of Responses 79

Q6.B: Which areas are off-limits?

Subsequently, interviewees were asked which of the same given areas would be considered “off-limits” in a



NOVEMBER 2014

120

potential Manufacturing R+D Center. While 28.6 percent of the responses indicated that nothing would be off-limits, the remaining responses included: research and innovation (23.8 percent), proprietary products, processes, and technologies (23.8 percent), intellectual propoerty (9.5 percent), supplier networks (4.8 percent), incubator/entrepreneurship space (4.8 percent), and any items outside of floor covering industry interests (4.8 percent).

Table 52: Areas “Off-Limits” for Potential Manufacturing R+D Center

Areas “Off-Limits” Total Percentage RankNone 6 28.6% 1Research and Innovation 5 23.8% 2Proprietary products/ processes/ technologies 5 23.8% 2Intellectual Property 2 9.5% 3Supplier Network 1 4.8% 4Incubator/entrepreneurship space 1 4.8% 4Anything outside of floor covering industry interests 1 4.8% 4Total Number of Responses 21

Q6.C: How could it be funded?

Internal stakeholders were also asked to consider how a Manufacturing R+D Center could be funded. Most responses fell into one of three categories: (1) grant funding (24 percent); (2) Other local/state/federal funding (24 percent); and industry funding (24 percent). Additional suggestions included member/service fees (12 percent), leveraging existing funding sources (4 percent), private investment (4 percent), collaborative endowments (4 percent), and pooled resources (4 percent).

Table 53: Potential Funding Sources for a Manufacturing R+D Center

Potential Funding Total Percentage RankGrant funding 6 24.0% 1Local/State/Federal Funding 6 24.0% 1Industry/ Larger corporations 6 24.0% 1Fees for training/ services/ space 3 12.0% 2Utilize systems that already are in place to receive funding 1 4.0% 3Private investment 1 4.0% 3Collaborative endowment 1 4.0% 3Pooled resources of participants 1 4.0% 3Total Number of Responses 25

Q6.D: Structure of Operations?

Internal stakeholders were also asked to consider how the operational structure of a Manufacturing R+D Center would be organized. Responses were varied, though over half were divided between three different operational structures: a board of directors (22.2 percent) a public-private partnership (22.2 percent), or a strictly private entity (11.1 percent). Other suggestions included a manufacturing consortium, an independent organization, a nonprofit, a steering committee, an intergovermental agreement, an organic form grown from a small initiative, a joint-venture, or a research institution-led structure.



NOVEMBER 2014

121

Table 54: Potential Operational Structure for a Manufacturing R+D Center

Potential Operational Structure Total Percentage RankBoard of Directors 4 22.2% 1Public-Private Partnership 4 22.2% 1Strictly private entity 2 11.1% 2Manufacturing Consortium 1 5.6% 3Independent 1 5.6% 3Nonprofit 1 5.6% 3Steering Committee 1 5.6% 3Intergovernmental agreement 1 5.6% 3Build from small initiative 1 5.6% 3Joint-venture 1 5.6% 3Managed by a research instituition, like Georgia Tech 1 5.6% 3Total Number of Responses 18

Q7: What are the top three (3) products your company buys?

Figure 27: Top Products PurchasedWhen asked about their purchasing needs, internal stakeholders identified the following products as the top products purchased by their firm: chemicals/synthetic materials (38.9 percent), fibers/fabrics (22.2 percent), raw materials/resources (18.1 percent), machinery, parts, services or technology (15.3 percent), and packaging materials (5.6 percent).

Q8: Where does your company buy it from? (more interested in city/state rather than name of the companies)

Internal stakeholders were also asked where they purchased their top products. Overall, the majority of products (87.1 percent) were purchased domestically, primarily from the southeast (80.3 percent for responses indicating a domestic region), with Georgia (28.8 percent), North Carolina (15.3 percent), and Tennessee (13.6 percent), the top states identified.

For those that purchased products internationally, Europe was the largest supplier of products, with Germany the largest supplier making up 50 percent of the responses that indicated a country other than the United States.



NOVEMBER 2014

122

Figure 28: State Where Products Are Purchased

*For responses indicating a state

Figure 29: Country Where Products Are Purchased

*For responses indicating a country other than the United States

Q9: Where does innovation come from in your company? Consider innovations in your company’s products, processes, and materials, to name a few. Some suggestions may include: • University-based research • Technology scouting • Intra-company R&D • Collaborative spaces • Senior management meetings • Supplier-driven • Customer-driven • Customer-supplier collaboration • Shop floor

When asked where innovation comes from in their companies, internal stakeholders cited a combination of intra-company R & D activities (24 percent), as well as customer- (14.7 percent), and supplier-driven (14.7 percent) sources. Additional sources of innovation included senior management meetings (9.3 percent), technology scouting (6.7 percent), customer-supplier collaboration (5.3 percent), shop floor innovations (5.3 percent), and university-based research (5.3 percent). “Other” responses included process improvements, sustainability efforts, consultants, and international resources, among others.

Table 55: Sources of Industry Innovation

Sources of Innovation Total Percentage RankIntra-company R&D 18 24.0% 1Customer-driven 11 14.7% 2Other 11 14.7% 2Supplier-driven 11 14.7% 2Senior management meetings 7 9.3% 3Technology Scouting 5 6.7% 4Customer-supplier collaboration 4 5.3% 5Shop floor 4 5.3% 4University-based research 4 5.3% 5Total Number of Responses 75

Q10: How can innovation be leveraged industry-wide?

Further exploring the topic of innovation, internal stakeholders were asked for suggestions on how innovation



NOVEMBER 2014

123

can be leveraged industry-wide. Nearly half (47.8 percent) of the responses given included collaboration and building partnerships as a key component to leverage innovation. Additional suggestions included promoting continued opportunities for research (9.1 percent) and the application of new technologies (9.1 percent). “Other” responses included continued intra-company R & D and consumer outreach, among others.

Table 56: Suggestions for Leveraging Innovation

Leveraging Innovation Total Percentage RankPartnerships 11 47.8% 1Other 8 36.4% 2Sustainability/ Research/ Innovation 2 9.1% 3Technology 2 9.1% 3Total Number of Responses 22

Q11: From what degree/certificate programs, technical schools, or universities does your workforce receive its education/training?

Answers to this question were varied, with not all internal stakeholders offering information for all categories. For instance, some stakeholders spoke more about the particular degrees and certificates desired, while others provided information on where there employees were educated. Below is a summary of the responses across the categories being measured.

Primary Training Source

Responses from internal stakeholders identified four primary sources of workforce training and development: (1) internal training programs (39.1 percent); (2) prior work experience (13.0 percent); (3) high school programs (26.1 percent); and certificate, apprenticeship, and co-op programs (21.7 percent).

Certificate Programs Figure 30: Top Certificate Programs

*For responses indicating a specific certificate program

Overall, the top certificate programs for the industry’s workforce, as reported by internal stakeholders, are (1) mechatronics and automation (23.8 percent); (2) programming (19.0 percent); (3) engineering (14.3 percent; (4) design, including computer-aided design (CAD) (9.5 percent); and (5) robotics (9.5 percent). Stakeholders also identified additional employee training in construction, human resources, maintenance, and soft skills programs.

Degree Programs

Internal stakeholders reported that their workforce largely received college degrees in business (27.3 percent) and management (18.2 percent). Additional degree programs held by the workforce included chemistry, engineering, human resources, industrial engineering, lean manufacturing, and public accounting.



NOVEMBER 2014

124

Figure 31: Top Degree Programs

*For responses indicating a specific degree program

Technical Schools and Two-Year Colleges

The majority of stakeholders who cited a technical school or two-year college in their responses reported that their workforce received its training from Georgia Northwestern Technical College (62.5 percent), Georgia Highlands College (25.0 percent). The remaining 12.5 percent of responses indicated that employees received training at local technical colleges, but did not specify the name of the institution.

Four-Year Colleges and Universities

Overall, internal stakeholders who identified four-year colleges or universities as providing education and training for the workforce cited academic institutions within the State of Georgia, including: Georgia Institute of Technology (20.7 percent); Southern Polytechnic State University (17.2 percent); Dalton State College (13.8 percent); Kennesaw State University (10.3 percent); Savannah College of Art and Design (6.9 percent); Berry College (3.4 percent); and the University of Georgia (3.4 percent). The remaining four-year schools identified outside of Georgia included: the University of Tennessee (10.3 percent); Auburn University (3.4 percent); Mississippi State University (3.4 percent); and the University of Alabama (3.4 percent).

Figure 33: Top 4-Year Colleges and Universities

*For responses indicating a 4-year college or university

Figure 32: Top Technical Schools and 2-Year Colleges

*For responses indicating a technical or 2-year college



NOVEMBER 2014

125

Q12: What are the biggest skills gaps in your company? Please think about the entire spectrum of your employment base, not just the hourly worker.

Figure 34: Company Skills GapsInternal stakeholders identified the following skills gaps in their companies: (1) applied technical and mechanical skills (44.7 percent); (2) soft skills (25.0 percent); (3) technical knowledge (15.8 percent); and leadership/management skills (9.2 percent). “Other” responses (1.3 percent) included nursing skills, while 3.9 percent of the responses collected reported no skills gaps.

Q13: We’ve heard that “you have to start young” to get kids interested in manufacturing as a career. How would you accomplish this?

When asked for suggestions as to how to engage youth and drive interest in the industry, nearly half (47.6 percent) of the responses of internal stakeholders cited the development or continued growth of youth oriented education and talent development programs, including promoting hands-on, project-based learning; developing or expanding internships, apprenticeships, and co-op programs; and aligning curriculum to support industry needs. Additionally, 30.5 percent of stakeholder responses included marketing activities aimed at improving the perception of the industry in the community, such as developing targeted marketing campaigns to promote opportunities in the industry, increasing exposure to the industry, and engaging parents, educators, and school counselors in industry education and outreach. Closely related to these activities were responses advocating for the development of industry-education partnerships (17.1 percent), fostering community support for industry issues (2.4 percent), and focusing on leadership development to aid in recruitment (2.4 percent).

Table 57: Suggestions for Engaging Youth

Engaging Youth Total Percentage RankTalent/ Workforce/ Education 39 47.6% 1Perception/ Marketing 25 30.5% 2Partnerships 14 17.1% 3Industry Support 2 2.4% 4Leadership/ Corp. Culture 2 2.4% 4Total Number of Responses 82

Q14: Thanks for your time and participation! Any other comments that we haven’t discussed, or questions for the project team?

The final interview question for the internal stakeholders was an open-ended question designed to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to provide any additional comments. Overall, responses were varied, but underscored the importance of workforce development and education, building partnerships, fostering research and innovation, and changing community perceptions about manufacturing careers and the floor covering industry.



NOVEMBER 2014

126

External State and Regional Partners Interview AnalysisThe external state and regional partners interview analysis resulted in responses from 27 unique respondents, representing local university and research institutions, technical colleges, Chambers of Commerce, private corporations, Development Authorities, Regional Commissions, professional associations, and local, county, and state governments. It is important to note that though all 27 interviewees were asked the same series of questions, the total number of responses may not be equivalent to the total number of external partners interviewed for the following reasons: (1) interviewees could decline to respond to a question, resulting in fewer total responses; or (2) interviewees may have provided responses that fell into more than one response-category, resulting in a total number of responses exceeding the number of external partners interviewed.

Q1: Stakeholder Demographics Figure 35: External Partner Sector

Of the external partners interviewed, 29.6 percent were from universities or research institutions. External partner interviews also included representatives from Chambers of Commerce (22.2 percent); private corporations (11.1 percent); Development Authorities (7.4 percent); Regional Commissions (7.4 percent); state governement (7.4 percent); technical colleges (7.4 percent); local and county governments (3.7 percent); and professional associations (3.4 percent).

Q2: How do you think [floor covering] manufacturing has fared in the region over the last three years (i.e., “post” recession)?

Overall, when compared with internal stakeholders, external partners had a slightly more pessimistic view of how the manufacturing has fared in the region over the past three years. While the majority of internal stakeholder responses indicated that the manufacturing industry, particularly floor covering, fared well in the three years post-recession, the external partners indicated that this post-recession period was marked by adaptation (35.0 percent), which included industrial decline and consolidation (26.0 percent). However, there were some responses that indicated that the industry is moving into a better position, with 18.0 percent of the responses reporting that the industry is rebounding, and 9.0 percent reporting that manufacturing is growing. The remaining responses indicated that the industry was fair/stable (9.0 percent) or experienced uneven/mixed impact (3.0 percent).

Table 58: Industry Response Post-Recession

Industry Response Total Percentage RankAdapting 35 35.0% 1Declining/Consolidating 26 26.0% 2Rebounding 18 18.0% 3Growing 9 9.0% 4Fair/Stable 9 9.0% 4Uneven/Mixed Impact 3 3.0% 5Total Number of Responses 100



NOVEMBER 2014

127

Q3: What have the strengths of [floor covering] manufacturing been over this period?

External partners perception of the strengths of manufacturing also differed from those of internal stakeholders. While over a third of internal stakeholders described economic and market advantages that contributed to the industry’s stability over the last three years, the majority of external partners cited strengths in research, innovation, and sustainability (41.8 percent) and industry support (41.8 percent). Regional talent and workforce strengths, and existing partnerships followed, each composing 7.3 percent of the responses. “Other” responses included the recovery of the construction industry and the consolidation of companies.

Table 59: Industry Strengths Post-Recession

Industry Strengths Total Percentage RankSustainability/ Research/ Innovation 46 41.8% 1Industry Support 46 41.8% 1Talent/ Workforce/ Education 8 7.3% 2Partnerships 8 7.3% 2Other 2 1.8% 3Total Number of Responses 110

Q4: What have the weaknesses of [floor covering] manufacturing been over this period?

The dominant weaknesses reported by the external partners reflected those reported by the internal stakeholders, with over one-third (34.8 percent) of the responses related to workforce development, education, and talent acquisition. Though the area workforce was previously acknowledged as a strength to the local industry, external stakeholders also recognized workforce challenges, including a shortage of skilled labor, a lack of soft skills development and work ethic, and difficulty in attracting talent (especially youth).

External partners also noted weaknesses stemming from larger issues of leadership and corporate culture (27.0 percent), unfavorable market and economic conditions (14.6 percent), a lack of external support for the industry (10.1 percent), negative perceptions and ineffective marketing (5.6 percent), and lack of key partnerships (2.2 percent). “Other” responses included issues with local government politics and criticisms of industry investments.

Table 60: Industry Weaknesses Post-Recession

Industry Weaknesses Total Percentage RankTalent/ Workforce/ Education 31 34.8% 1Leadership/ Corp. Culture 24 27.0% 2Economic/ Market Conditions 13 14.6% 3Lack of External Support 9 10.1% 4Perception/Marketing 5 5.6% 5Other 5 5.6% 5Partnerships 2 2.2% 6Total Number of Responses 89

Q5: What should the Northwest Georgia region’s top THREE priorities be for ensuring that advanced manufacturing continues to grow and thrive in the region?

External partners were asked to offer suggestions for priority areas for continued growth of advanced manufacturing in the Northwest Georgia region. Not surprisingly, the priority area mentioned in the greatest number of responses was talent/workforce development and education, composing 35.4 percent of the responses. This was followed by partnerships (17.7 percent); growing and encouraging industry support



NOVEMBER 2014

128

(15.6 percent); infrastructure and facility improvements (14.6 percent); continued sustainability, research, and innovation (7.3 percent); and utilizing targeted marketing to change existing negative perceptions of the industry (4.2 percent). “Other” responses included quality of life improvements and addressing existing land-use issues.

Table 61: Suggested Industry Priorities for Continued Growth

Priorities for Growth Total Percentage RankTalent/ Workforce/ Education 34 35.4% 1Partnerships 17 17.7% 2Industry Support 15 15.6% 3Infrastructure/ Facility Improvements 14 14.6% 4Sustainability/ Research/ Innovation 7 7.3% 5Other 5 5.2% 6Perception/Marketing 4 4.2% 7Total Number of Responses 96

Q6: We discussed the possibility for Manufacturing R&D Center for the [floor covering] industry, with the following as potential elements to include: • Workforce and training space • Research and innovation space (sustainability and life cycle issues, fiber research) • Commercialization assistance • Space for small and medium size enterprises (SME’s) • Collaborative space between university, tech college and industry

Q6.1: Would this type of center make sense for the region?

Though not all external partners responded to this question, of those who did, the majority agreed that the described Manufacturing R&D Center “made sense” for the region, with 75.0 percent of responses agreeing outright, and another 15.0 percent agreeing that this type of center could work in the region with modifications. The remaining 10.0 percent of responses were more hesitant, offering a response of “maybe.”

Table 62: Would a Manufacturing R&D Center Make Sense for the Region?

External Partner Response Total Percentage RankYes 15 75.0% 1Yes, with modifications 3 15.0% 2Maybe 2 10.0% 3Total Number of Responses 20

Q6.2: How could it be funded?

External partners suggestions were similar to those suggested by internal stakeholders, and largely fell into five areas: federal funding (19.2 percent); other government sources, including local, county, and state funding sources (19.2 percent); industry funding (15.4 percent), public-private partnerships (15.4 percent), and membership fees (11.5 percent). Other suggestions included foundations (7.7 percent), founders/creators (3.8 percent); local in-kind contributions (3.8 percent), and university partners (3.8 percent).



NOVEMBER 2014

129

Table 63: Potential Funding Sources for a Manufacturing R+D Center

Opportunities for Funding Total Percentage RankFederal funding 5 19.2% 1Other government sources 5 19.2% 1Industry 4 15.4% 2Public-private partnership 4 15.4% 2Members 3 11.5% 3Foundations 2 7.7% 4Creators 1 3.8% 5Local in-kind contributions 1 3.8% 5University Partners 1 3.8% 5Total Number of Responses 26

Q6.3: Structure of Operations?

External partners were also asked to consider how the operational structure of a Manufacturing R+D Center would be organized. Responses were similar for the external partners as compared with the internal stakeholders, with over half were divided between three different operational structures: a board of directors (37.5 percent) a public-private partnership, in this case, specifically an industry-university partnership (31.3 percent), or professional/private leadership (12.5 percent). Other suggestions included a nonprofit, co-op or public makerspace structure.

Table 64: Potential Operational Structure for a Manufacturing R+D Center

Structure of Operations Total Percentage RankBoard of Directors 6 37.5% 1Industry/ University Partnership 5 31.3% 2Professional/Private Leadership 2 12.5% 3Nonprofit 1 6.3% 4Co-op structure 1 6.3% 4Public maker space 1 6.3% 4Total Number of Responses 16

Additional Comments:

External partners also offered additional comments with regard to the development of a potential Manufacturing R & D Center. Highlights from those comments are shared below:

Marketing and Attraction:

• Focus on opportunities for student engagement

• May be used to address needed education solutions for immigrant youth

• Market the center, and industry, to the “common” people

• Center may be a possible catalyst for attraction of people/companies

Training and Education:

• Workforce development key to center priorities

• Engage existing employees in activities at the center



NOVEMBER 2014

130

• Use as a means to develop transferable skill-sets

• Emphasize makerspace aspect of the center

• Use as a catalyst to rebuild the middle class

Collaboration:

• Center used to house regular meetings of, and foster collaboration among, stakeholders

• Develop and hold an annual summit for further education and collaboration

Existing Assets:

• No need for a new facility, use existing regional resources

• Focus efforts on continued improvement of existing assets

Research and Innovation:

• Utilize Georgia Tech and other area post-secondary instutions in a research capacity

• Focus on moving ideas from research to market

Q7: We’ve heard that “you have to start young” to get kids interested in manufacturing as a career. How would you accomplish this?

When asked for suggestions as to how to engage youth and drive interest in the industry, the responses of external partners were similar to those of internal stakeholders, with over one-third (38.3 percent) of the responses related to targeted marketing to highlight industry benefits and opportunities in an effort to change the negative perception of manufacturing. This was closely followed by suggestions to continue growth of youth oriented education and talent development programs, composing 36.2 percent of the responses. These responses included building on existing educational programs - expanding offerings at college and career academies and strengthening “shop” programs; developing or expanding internships, apprenticeships, and co-op programs; aligning curriculum to support industry needs; and increasing student expose to industry through the development of mobile STEM labs and the development of makerspaces. Additionally, 14.9 percent of responses specifically addressed educating parents on the viability of advanced manufacturing as a career path for their children. Responses also emphasized the importance of strategic partnerships (8.5 percent) and addressing cultural issues (“other,” 2.1 percent).

Table 65: Suggestions for Engaging Youth

Engaging Youth Total Percentage RankPerception/Marketing 18 38.3% 1Talent/ Workforce/ Education 17 36.2% 2Parent Involvement 7 14.9% 3Partnerships 4 8.5% 4Other 1 2.1% 5Total 47

Q8: Thanks for your time and participation! Any other comments that we haven’t discussed, or questions for the project team?

Industry Support for Continued Growth



NOVEMBER 2014

131

• Continue to diversify manufacturing

• Improve infrastructure, transportation, and logistics

• Develop industry best practices

Collaboration • Explore partnerships between industry and the state

• Identify areas of collaboration around workforce development and training

• Strengthen industry partnerships

Plan Development and Implementation

• Establish a coordinating committee to drive initiatives

• Develop action groups to implement resolutions

• Coordinate and integrate the IMCP Strategic Plan with the Digital Economy Strategic Plan

• Draft Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs)

Marketing

• Collect and share current industry data to highlight strengths and opportunities

• Develop a regional marketing effort to continue to promote advanced manufacturing



NOVEMBER 2014

132

APPENDIX C: IMCP ALIGNED AGENCIES & PROGRAMS ROAD MAPAgency Program

NameProgram Goal Program Mechanics Funding Details Eligible Activities Who can Apply Application Details

Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC)

Local Access Road (LAR) Program

Under the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS), this program aims to better link the Region’s businesses, communities, and residents to the ADHS and to other key parts of the Region’s transportation network.

Grants Funding for an access road project is allowed at 80% in distressed, at-risk and transitional counties. Funding is limited to 30% in competitive counties and is not normally available in attainment counties unless there are specific circumstances.

Funding is available to provide access to industrial sites, business parks, and commercial areas where significant employment opportunities are present. Other eligible sites include timberlands with significant commercial value and areas where educational or recreational services are provided.

Appalachian counties Rolling Applications. Proposals for program should be developed in coordination with the State ARC Program Office and State Department of Transportation as required lead times can span multiple fiscal years and/or project cycles. Matching funds or seeking other outside funding is encouraged. See Section 5 for general requirements: http://www.arc.gov/publications/ARCProjectGuidelines.asp#sec. 5


Business Development Revolving Loan Fund Grants (RLFs)

Program aims to use this pool of money to make loans in order to create and retain jobs and spur economic development.

Traditional revolving loan structure except the goal is economic development instead of profit.

Loans are restricted by the limit applicable to the county in which the project for which the loan is requested is located, similarly to the grant structure.

Small business development; existing business and saving jobs; redevelopment of blighted land and vacant facilities for productive use; modernization and rehabilitation of existing industrial or manufacturing facilities; support for the use of new technologies, growth industries, high tech firms; development of businesses owned and operated by minorities, women, and members of other economically disadvantaged groups.

Appalachian counties Rolling Applications. Applications for grant assistance must be submitted by the Appalachian state representing the applicant. The proposed project must support the state’s strategy statement that describes the state’s program for achieving the goals and objectives contained in the state development plan. Matching funds or seeking other outside funding is encouraged. See Section 5 for general requirements: http://www.arc.gov/publications/ARCProjectGuidelines.asp#sec. 5


Distressed Counties Program

Two Parts: (1) capacity building to strengthen communities and help organizations fulfill their mission effectively; (2) telecommunications and information technology initiative

Minigrants Grants are generally allowed at 80% of project costs in distressed counties and is not normally available for othert counties unless there are specific circumstances.

(1) workshops, knowledge sharing, etc.; and ARC outreach efforts to give local communities access to other resources; (2) access and infrastructure; education and training; e-commerce; technology-sector job creation

Chattooga county is the only county that currently qualifies in Georgia

Rolling Applications. See Section 5 for general requirements: http://www.arc.gov/publications/ARCProjectGuidelines.asp#sec. 5 Matching funds or seeking other outside funding is encouraged.


Regional Skills Partnerships (Section 205 Grants)

Under the Appalachian Regional Development Act (ARDA), program goal is to improve the job skills of Appalachian workers for a specified industry.

Grants Grants are generally allowed at 80% of project costs in distressed counties; 70% in at-risk counties; 30% in competitive counties and is not normally available for attainment counties.

Funding is available for any project that is intended to improve the job skills of workers for a specified industry in a specified geographic area of Appalachia.: (1) assessments of training and job skill needs for an industry; (2) development of curricula and training methods, including electronic learning or technology-based training; (3) identification of training providers and the development of partnerships between the industry and educational institutions, including community colleges; (4) development of apprenticeship programs; (5) development of training programs for workers, including dislocated workers; and (6) development of training plans for businesses.

Appalachian counties; groups that serve one or more industries in a specified geographic area and consist of representatives of businesses or nonprofit organizations that represent businesses, labor organizations, State and local governments, or educational institutions.

In addition to the information required by Section 5 of the ARC Project Guidelines, regional skills partnership project applications must include a description of the consortium that is applying for the grant indicating the geographic area and the industry or industries it serves along with a listing of its members and their business or organizational affiliations. The project application must also indicate the specific industry for which it is designed to improve workers skills. Evaluation measures keyed to jobs created or preserved by the project must be included.

Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) & Georgia Appalachian Center for Higher Education

Appalachian Higher Education (AHE) Network

To increase the college-going rate through state-based centers who work with high schools

Grants AHE Network centers provide grants of approximately $2,000-$10,000 to high schools in their service areas via a competitive process

Career software/videos, books for college readiness, teacher leadership, relevant speakers, newsletters for parents, scholarship promotional materials, field trips, relevant meetings, etc.

Transitional or at-risk counties. Selected high schools within the counties are notified of their eligibility to apply each year.

Application deadline is April 13th for the following year. Eligible schools are invited to attend the grant writing workshop which details the application proposal process.



NOVEMBER 2014

133

Agency Program Name

Program Goal Program Mechanics Funding Details Eligible Activities Who can Apply Application Details

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Integrated Planning and Investment Grants (IPI Grants) *pending funding

To strengthen economic resilience of metropolitan and rural communities through the creation of comprehensive strategic investment plans.

Between 20 and 30 IPI Grants will be awarded. They will have flexible grant structures and leveraging local funds is encouraged

30% of funding goes to rural communities with populations < 200,000

Activities that contribute to the creation of a comprehensive strategic investment plan.

Grant recipients will establish consortia of local leaders with a range of public/private/non-profit to oversee.

*TBD, because the program is yet to be funded from Congress

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of the Treasury - Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund), and the Department of Agriculture - Rural Development (USDA-RD)

Appalachia Economic Development Initiative (AEDI)

To increase access to capital for business lending and economic development in the chronically underserved and undercapitalized Appalachia Region. Specifically, it will provide investment and technical assistance to State community and economic development agencies that apply on behalf of local rural nonprofit organizations or community development corporations that focus on small business development

Grants The maximum amount of funds available for is $1,000,000. HUD will enter into a grant agreement with successful applicants for the performance period for up to 36 months.

Innovative economic development uses, including but not limited to loan or investment capital, loan loss reserves, program staff costs, information systems, market studies, portfolio analyses, business planning, and other activities supporting the program goals.

State community or economic development agencies that apply on behalf of local rural nonprofit organizations in the Appalachia Region

Deadline was November 3, 2014 (anticipated November, 2015)

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration

Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Program (TAACCT)

To expand and improve community colleges’ & other higher education institutions’ ability to deliver education and career training programs

Multi-year grants The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 appropriated $2 billion for Fiscal Years 2011-2014 ($500 million annually) for this program. Future funding is TBD.

Activities related to education and career training programs that can be completed in two years or less, are suited for workers who are eligible for training under the TAA for Workers program, and prepare program participants for employment in high-wage, high-skill occupations.

Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education and consortia of two or more of those eligible institutions.

Application deadline was July 2014, future dates TBD

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration

Workforce Innovation Fund

To support innovative approaches to the design and delivery of employment and training services that generate long-term improvements in the performance of the public workforce system, both in terms of outcomes for job seeker and employer customers and cost-effectiveness

Grants Last round of funding was approximately $53 million to be awarded in 8-15 grants. The period of performance is 60 months total (12 months planning, 26 months technical performance, 12 months evaluation)

Innovative strategies and activities related to employment and training services that seek to re-tool delivery strategies and/or policy and administrative systems and processes to improve outcomes for workforce system costumers; and evaluate the effectiveness of these activities

State Workforce Agencies, Local Workforce Investment Boards and other Native American approved entities

Application deadline was June 2014, future dates TBD

Department of Transportation

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER)

To make investments in our Nation’s infrastructure (road, rail, transit, port projects, etc.) to make communities more livable and sustainable.

Grant Since 2009, more than $4.1 billion has been awarded over the course of six rounds of funding. $600 million was awarded in FY 2014

Each project is multi-modal, multi-jurisdictional or otherwise challenging to fund through existing programs.

Funding can go directly to any public entity, including municipalities, counties, port authorities, tribal governments, MPOs, or others

Application deadline was April 2014, future dates TBD

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Targeted Brownfield Assessments (TBA)

To help minimize the uncertainties of contamination and set the stage for new investment

Not a grant program, but a service provided by EPA via a contractor, who conducts environmental assessment activities to address the requestor’s needs

TBA assistance comes from either EPA Regional Brownfields offices or directly from the EPA.

Environmental assessment activities of brownfield areas such as Phase I and Phase II assessments, evaluations of cleanup options, estimates of future costs, etc.

States, tribes, and municipalities, as well as land clearance authorities, regional redevelopment agencies, and other eligible entities

New round of funding announced and applications are due December, 2014


Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Grants

to capitalize a revolving loan fund and to provide subgrants to carry out cleanup activities at brownfield sites to help to leverage the resources needed to clean up and redevelop brownfields

Loans & Subgrants Up to $1,000,000 for a single recipient or a coalition of eligible entities. Grant period is five years.

RLF grants provide funding to actually carry out the cleanup activities.

Communities, regional development authorities, and other eligible recipients

Application deadline was April 2014, future dates TBD


Cleanup Grants To directly fund cleanup activities at specific sites to help pave the way for redevelopment and reuse of a Brownfield site

Grants Up to $200,000 per site and no entity may apply for funding cleanup activities at more than five sites. Cleanup Grants require a 20% cost share, which may be in the form of money, labor, material, or services. Performance period is three years.

Cleanup grants provide direct funding for cleanup activities at specific sites.

Communities, regional development authorities, and other eligible recipients. The applicant must be the sole owner of the property.

New round of funding announced and applications are due December, 2014



NOVEMBER 2014

134

Agency Program Name


National Science Foundation

Advanced Technology Education (ATE)

With an emphasis on two-year colleges, the program focuses on the education of technicians for the high-technology fields

Award/Grant Partnerships are awarded program funding. Curriculum development; professional development of college faculty and secondary school teachers; career pathways to two-year colleges from secondary schools and from two-year colleges to four-year institutions; and other activities. Research proposals to advance the knowledge base related to technician education.

Partnerships between academic institutions and employers…supplemental awards will only be to existing ATE grantees also designated as Manufacturing Communities entitled to challenge grants

Deadline is October 2015; http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf14001/aagprint.pdf


Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRC)

Develops long-term partnerships among industry, academe, and government.

Award/Grant Catalyzed by a seed investment from the NSF and primarily supported by industry center members

Creating or funding partnerships between industry, academe, and government in order to do research that benefits all parties and contributes to the nation’s research infrastructure base.

Partnerships between academic institutions and industry partners

Deadline is March 2015; http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf14001/aagprint.pdf


Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI)

To promote university-industry partnerships by fundind projects or fellowships/traineeships available to support an eclectic mix of industry-university linkages

Grant Pending availability of funding, 60-80 grants will be awarded from a $5,000,000 pool

This solicitation targets high-risk/high-gain research with a focus on fundamental research, new approaches to solving generic problems, development of innovative collaborative industry-university educational programs, and direct transfer of new knowledge between academe and industry.

Emphasis is on faculty, postdoctoral fellows and students who wish to conduct research and gain experience in an industrial setting; industrial scientists and engineers to bring industry’s perspective and integrative skills to academe; and interdisciplinary university-industry teams to conduct research projects

Please contact the appropriate disciplinary program office to obtain information about current deadline dates.

Small Business Administration, Office of Investment and Innovation

Accelerator Program

To provide high potential entrepreneurs and fast growing start-ups with (1) mentorship; (2) access to capital; (3) space

Award/Grant $2.5 million to distribute in $50,000 prizes to fund operating budgets

Operating budget for normal activities. Accelerators, incubators, co-working startup communities, shared tinker-spaces, etc.

Deadline was August 2014. Future TBD; https://gaf2014.wufoo.com/forms/sba-growth-accelerator-fund-application/

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program (REDLG)

To create and retain employment in rural areas.

Loans and Grants During FY 2014, approx $91 million is available for loans and $10 million for grants. Loans are zero interest loans.

Purchase or improvement of real estate, buildings, and equipment, working capital and start-up costs; health care facilities and equipment, business incubators; telecommunications/computer networks; educational and job training facilities and services; community facilities and other community development projects

Local public and nonprofit utilities; rural area is any area other than a city or town that has a population > 50,000 inhabitants and its contiguous urbanized areas

To apply, need to work with Rural Development State Office


Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program (RBEG)

To assist small and emerging businesses in rural areas

Grants There is no maximum level of grant funding. However, smaller projects are given higher priority. Generally grants range $10,000 up to $500,000.

Capitalization of revolving loan funds to finance small and emerging rural businesses; training and technical assistance; job training; community facilities and infrastructure, rural transportation improvement; and project planning and feasibility

Public bodies and private nonprofit corporations to assist small and emerging businesses in rural areas (any area other than a city or town that has a population > 50,000 inhabitants and its contiguous urbanized area



Intermediary Relending Program (IRP)

Finance business and economic development activities in rural communities

Revolving loan funds An intermediary may borrow up to $2 million under its first financing and up to $1 million at a time thereafter. Total aggregate debt is capped at $15 million. For purposes of Fiscal Year 2007, the maximum loan request that an intermediary may borrower is $750,000. An ultimate recipient borrower may borrow up to $250,000.

Acquisition of a business, purchase or development of land, buildings, facilities, leases, purchase equipment, leasehold improvements, machinery, supplies; startup costs and working capital. IRP may also finance community and economic development projects

Private non-profit corporations, public agencies, Indian groups, and cooperatives with at least 51% rural membership may apply for intermediary lender status




NOVEMBER 2014

135

Agency Program Name



Business & Industry Guaranteed Loan Program (B&I)

To bolster existing private credit structure by guaranteeing quality loans aimed at improving the economic and environmental climate in rural communities.

Loans The total amount of Agency loans to one borrower must not exceed $10 million. The Administrator may, at the Administrator’s discretion, grant an exception to the $10 million limit for loans of $25 million under certain circumstances. The Secretary may approve guaranteed loans in excess of $25 million, up to $40 million, for rural cooperative organizations that process value-added agricultural commodities.

Borrowers must be engaged in a business that will provide employment; improve the economic or environmental climate; promote the conservation, development, and use of water for aquaculture; or reduce the reliance on nonrenewable energy resources by encouraging the development and construction of solar energy systems and other renewable energy sources

Borrower may be a cooperative organization, corporation, partnership, or other legal entity organized and operated on a profit or nonprofit basis; an Indian tribe on a Federal or State reservation or other Federally recognized tribal group; a public body; or an individual.


Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment

Defense Industry Adjustment (DIA) Program & Community Economic Adjustment Grants

To assist communities, businesses, and workers respond to DoD-driven impacts

Programmatic Assistance & Grants

Funding not guaranteed for 2015. However, a minimum of ten percent of the project’s total proposed funding is to be comprised of non-Federal sources. In the case of a realignment or announced mission expansion resulting in local growth, a minimum of twenty-five percent of the project’s total proposed funding is to be comprised of non-Federal sources. Length of assistance may extend across more than one period and will be determined on the basis of project need and requirements. Project periods should not exceed one year

Activities related to forming adjustment strategies often focus on regional job creation through business development, attraction and expansion, workforce development, and community economic diversification.

States and communities, including workers, businesses and other community interests that are affected by a DoD program contraction or elimination

An applicant should consult the office or official designated as the single point of contact in his or her State for more information on the process the State requires to be followed in applying for assistance, if the State has selected the program for review.

Economic Development Administration (EDA)

Economic Development Assistance Programs (EDAP)

To support the implementation of regional economic development strategies designed to create jobs, leverage private capital, encourage economic development, and strengthen America’s ability to compete in the global marketplace.

Grants, revolving loans through Public Works program and through Economic Adjustment Assistance (EAA) program

Subject to the availability of funds, EDA may award grants or cooperative agreements to eligible applicants to help support economic development activities. Project periods are dependent on the type of project, scope of work, and the EDA program under which the grant or cooperative agreement for the project is awarded.

Activities that assist communities to develop initiatives that advance new ideas and creative approaches to address rapidly evolving economic conditions.

District Organization; Indian Tribe or a consortium of Indian Tribes; State, city, or other political subdivision of a State, including a special purpose unit of a State or local government engaged in economic or infrastructure development activities, or a consortium of political subdivisions; institution of higher education or a consortium of institutions of higher education; or public or private non-profit organization or association acting in cooperation with officials of a political subdivision of a State

Deadline was October 17, 2014 for funding cycle 1 of FY 2015; future dates TBD