Global Direct Investment Solutions

Corporate Development for a Networked World

OnTheShortList.com     SurgeUSA.org

ShortListNews.com

GUIDE Data Pointers

Bruce Donnelly   bruce@gdi-solutions.com    (Biography)

Refer to our regional or state directories for links to websites and other resources for specific areas of the world, including links to data and presentations for participating areas.

Standardized community data may also support economic development officials for tasks such as competitive benchmarking and measuring their progress over time. 

See also : background comments on the IEDC data standards initiative.  The various "data" services help to address one aspect of location selection, as illustrated in the graphic about GUIDE services (Globally Uniform Investment Data & Experience).

The IEDC website provides Excel tables defining over 1200 standard data elements.  The general scope of these 25 tables is summarized below for convenience.

Contact us for specific suggestions of data sources for individual project requirements.

We do not assume responsibility for the reliability of such data sources, or any investment decisions which may be based upon their information.  See also : other Research resources, Consultant Tips, and our list of Associations and Publishers or Governmental Services as well as the selective list of magazine features by region or by topic.  The Human Resources, Tax, or Legal resources may also be helpful, as well as the list for Corporate Real Estate services, Logistics, and Utilities.

We do not intend to try to consolidate and publish databases about areas through this website.  Other services exist for that purpose already, including those listed at right.  Instead, in our regional tables of contacts, we will provide links for executives and their advisors to easily find such community data for participating areas, whether it is made available through one of the database publishing services listed here, or through the area's own website.  When possible, we will provide links directly to such data.

We also highlight "point of view" analysis presentations reflecting local knowledge supported by verifiable facts, typically including data which is consistent with the IEDC guidelines.  Promotional presentations of this nature may use such data selectively to feature specific benefits of their areas, and show what differentiates their area from the perspective of potential investors, including features or opportunities which may be of special interest for particular industries or types of projects.

We also provide various other services to highlight what differentiates an area, such as the GUIDE Area Profile.  Refer to our regional contact tables for links to such content.

Executives and their advisors should be aware of limitations and differences among tertiary sources which re-publish area data.  "Primary" field research by a company or consultant would directly investigate their own specific interests.  Indirect sources such as primary or "secondary" research data and analysis published by independent private or governmental organizations for some other purpose may also be useful for "desk" research and analysis, such as to limit costly field research and validate the assertions of promotional representatives or project team members.  Data which is organized for the benefit of investors can be a very convenient tool, but only if used effectively.

The available data which already conforms to the IEDC guidelines is mainly for US and Canadian locations because US location consultants and economic development professionals developed the standards according to the information they already used, meaning data which is readily available and relevant to project planning in the US and Canada.  Canadian development agencies already try to follow the same guidelines for convenience despite some inconsistencies in the original data sources, but the rest of the world is generally not covered in any consistent way by comparable data.  Issues which pertain mainly to other regions of the world may not be addressed at all.  It is very difficult to find directly comparable, timely, and reliable data between countries.

The DevelopmentAlliance and Location One data are limited to the data provided by areas which pay to publish their data through these services, complemented by some general statistics such as government data.  The resulting profiles can be incomplete both in terms of geographic coverage (areas which choose to participate) and specific data elements for participating areas (what each area chooses to publish).  Areas may choose not to provide some data, which may simply reflect resource constraints rather than adverse data, but this limits the ability to perform searches across the database, and introduces the risk that some data which might screen an area out of consideration will simply be excluded by the area representatives to reduce the risk of that outcome.  There can be inconsistencies in the data between participating areas (different sources, different time, etc.).  For example, some areas may keep their data more current than others.  Despite such limitations, this approach has the potential advantage of enabling area representatives to provide what they regard as the most important, timely, and reliable information about their areas for investors, including data based on local market knowledge or research which may not be available from any other published sources.

The bizsitesDATA.com approach provides consistent data on many places which is compiled from many independently published sources rather than the local area representatives who are promoting investment.  That includes sources which openly publish the data for free, such as government statistics, plus other sources such as commercial databases or research providers with related fees and usage restrictions.  This approach makes it possible to search across a large database for areas which match specific criteria, even if data elements for some areas may be inaccurate or potentially misleading from a perspective based on greater local market knowledge or more experience at the data query, screening, and analysis process for projects.  Thus, although useful for basic screening tasks, such as to objectively identify a list of locations through criteria which suggest they may merit closer examination, there are potential pitfalls in the use of such data for the location selection and analysis process.

In summary, each of these services may be useful as a tool, but they all have limitations and serve more as a starting point to focus project planning work and direct research, rather than as the basis for reaching conclusions about location alternatives.  They are typically used to help eliminate alternatives which don't seem to meet basic or critical needs of a project, rather than to determine which area is most suitable.  They may, however, help to identify unfamiliar alternatives which merit consideration.

Access to other data services and the archived articles available through the portal may require a free registration process, and some data requires a paid subscription to Conway Data services.

Note that Conway Data, publisher of Site Selection magazine, also provides leads to advertisers about project enquiries.

Communities may also publish data on their own websites which conforms to the IEDC data guidelines, rather than through this or any of the other services below. 

These re-publishing services consolidate such data in one place with query tools for the convenience of potential investors and advisors who need to identify and compare many location alternatives, such as by screening areas for specific attributes.

Additional market knowledge about areas of potential interest will be found through the websites of local area representatives, or through direct contact with them about specific project needs.

This service includes property listings.

Areas pay a fee to use this service to publish data about their areas, but the data is free to users.

www.locationone.com

www.aquiladevelopment.com

Communities can update their own data.  The database is not based upon the IEDC guidelines, but includes similar data.

That was superseded by a new working relationship with Site Selection magazine and the developmentalliance.com portal, so the name and website may change again.

Users pay a fee for this service, and areas also pay a fee if they want to use the data for their areas or provide promotional profiles or related advertising.

formerly www.acn.net

This no longer appears to be active

The Location One service (above) includes both community and property data as provided by the participating areas.

When the property requirements of a project are unique, such as a very large site or a special type of existing building, some of the real estate databases may be useful to narrow the search.

This is an imperfect process, however, since there is no reliable single source of information about what is available in all areas, or what might become available soon.  The best way to screen for suitable sites in an area may still be to contact the local area representatives and brokers, rather than to try to rely upon property databases.  The listings just make it easier to find properties, but are not comprehensive.

The same may be true when location alternatives are already narrowly defined (such as for relocation within a specific travel-to-work area, or just-in-time service to a major customer) or are restricted by technical issues (process industries such as chemicals, semiconductors, etc.).

We also selectively highlight some properties or situations which may be of special interest for major projects, which can include both available real estate as well as recent or potential business closures which may present special opportunities (available skills, equipment, unique deal, etc.).

Keep in mind that economic development contacts in an area may be aware of properties which are not currently listed with brokers, but could become available.  For example, new sites may be in the planning and approval process, or future facility closures may already be known.

Brokers may also know of potentially available "shadow" space, which is owned or leased by companies and potentially available because it is in excess of their needs, but is not listed on the market.

see also www.demographicsnow.com for data and GIS resources for analysis

The World Bank has been involved recently in some initiatives to try to improve the availability of useful information for planning foreign direct investment (FDI) projects in a consistent way, particularly to improve the flow of investment activity in developing countries.  This includes work, notably within MIGA, to support the development of investment promotion agencies (IPA's), relevant websites, and better data for reference by potential investors.  See also : www.miga.org

Although this should prove helpful to investors, the critical factor for foreign direct investment decisions is generally not the availability or quality of relevant data and support services from governmental or investment promotion agencies, but rather the fundamental attributes of the business environment which such data reflects.

As a few obvious examples, government intervention in foreign exchange rates, movement of funds, terms of trade, regulatory practices, protection of intellectual or other property, investment in infrastructure, security, or other factors can influence the investment decisions.  Better IPA's, data, and websites are largely irrelevant in places where the fundamental business environment is simply unattractive to investors.  It is not sufficient to develop a better process to promote an area.  The need for investment is obvious, but the real challenge is to create an attractive environment for investment.

International projects typically involve greater uncertainties and risks, plus factors which may seem insignificant for choices within a single country such as the US or Canada, such as the relative political and economic stability of competing locations.

Good location consultants deliver high value for their clients through the practical project experience, disciplined location selection and negotiation process, and independent perspective they bring to a project team.

The use of published data to assist in the decision process should not be confused with the need for direct field research, market knowledge, independent judgment and business experience to confirm the suitability of a location choice for a specific project.

Every business and project is unique.  There is no standardized process to select an "optimal" location for a project through data analysis.  There is a need for critical independent research and analysis to identify good opportunities and minimize the risks of surprises which might prove very costly over time.

Data is helpful as a starting point for location decisions, but it is just one tool.  Whether good data is available or not, the experience of similar investors may be more critical.

The IEDC data guidelines consist of 25 tables, available in Excel format from the IEDC website, and include more than 1200 data elements.  Many communities will not have the resources or inclination to maintain so much data about their areas, and it is important to recognize that the tables were never designed to be "user-friendly" beyond simply organizing the data elements into tables in a consistent way by topic according to a structure suggested by various location consultants.

Areas can conform to the guidelines by maintaining and presenting the relevant data to users in a different format, and without maintaining all of the data elements involved.  After all, some data elements will not be relevant to all areas, and many data elements are already available from other published sources.  In general, however, it is useful to present such data in a format which can easily be downloaded and used for further analysis and location comparisons, as in the case of Excel spreadsheets.

While representing the location consultants of PricewaterhouseCoopers a few years ago, the founder of GDI Solutions therefore suggested to IEDC that all areas be encouraged to focus on providing data which location consultants regard as more difficult to obtain from published sources, or which requires local market knowledge.

This resulted in the focus list which is repeated at right for reference, as also published by IEDC and through their DevelopmentAlliance.com portal.

It was suggested by location consultants that economic development organizations focus on providing data for the following tables within the IEDC guidelines, mainly because greater local market knowledge is necessary to address these topics better than through the use of data which may be available from other published sources.

• Table 3 - Leading Employers by Sectors
• Table 4 - New Companies in the Area
• Table 11 - Average Salary by Occupation
• Table 12 - Worker's Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
• Table 13 - Labor-Management Relations (% of work force organized)
• Table 15 - Taxation (real and personal property tax)
• Table 16 - Occupancy / Supply (just the "average" costs)
• Table 17 - Utilities, telecommunications, and business services
• Table 21 - Quality of Life (central city and selected suburban school districts)

These suggestions do not mean that the rest of the data elements are less important, but simply that the needs for such data can often be met well through other sources.  Local representatives may be able to offer more timely and reliable data as well as additional insights beyond the raw data into the business environment for investment.  That includes direct experience with other investors for the specific location selection factor which the data element or table is intended to address for location comparisons.

The full data guidelines can be downloaded from the IEDC website as an Excel workbook with the data elements listed in 25 tables on separate worksheets :

http://www.iedconline.org/index.php?p=Data_Standards

The fact that data about an area may be maintained and published by independent sources, rather than through the work of local economic development organizations which are trying to attract and retain investment in their areas, does not necessarily mean that the data is better or more reliable.  It may be less selective, however, since promotional organizations may omit facts which could be perceived negatively.

Note that the guidelines focus on office and industrial or logistics projects, rather than retail, tourism/hospitality, healthcare, entertainment, residential, infrastructure or other types of community development projects.  This reflects the fact that the consultants involved in the creation of these guidelines focus on such sectors, as do most of the economic development organizations.

In addition to the tables listed above, the following comprise the remainder of the IEDC data guidelines :

• Table 1 - Demographic Characteristics
• Table 2 - Labor Force Characteristics
• Table 5 - Military Base & Installations
• Table 6 - Research Base (R&D centers)
• Table 7 - Higher Education Resources : Four Year Institutions
• Table 8 - Higher Education Resources : Community Colleges
• Table 9 - Vocational / Technical Centers, other than Community Colleges
• Table 10 - Payroll costs by industry
• Table 14 - Transportation
• Table 18 - Environmental Issues
• Table 19 - Government
• Table 20 - International Resources
• Table 22 - Available Office Building
• Table 23 - Existing Office Site Profile
• Table 24 - Available Industrial Building
• Table 25 - Existing Industrial Site Profile

It is important to understand that the origin of the "data standards" project was not an effort to create a user-friendly tool for executives or their advisors to support business location decisions.  Instead, it was prompted by the frustration of many economic development organizations with location consultants who sent them long requests for data about their areas with short deadlines for response.  Since their enquiries might ask for information on the same basic topic in different ways, it was hard to be well prepared to respond quickly.  In short, there needed to be some consistency to the information requests because of the limited resources available to satisfy them.

Over the years, however, this situation was overtaken by events.  Some of the consultants who were the worst offenders (massive information requests to many areas on short deadlines) are no longer in business, or can now obtain most such data easily from independently published sources or the websites of the areas involved in the context of the growth of the Internet.  Although some consultants continue to make unreasonable information requests, they are isolated problems.

The data standards initiative also became a compendium of almost anything which anyone ever thought might be important to a potential investor.  Despite efforts to simplify the guidelines, the result is a long list of over 1200 data elements which would simply be beyond the resources of many area representatives to maintain in a timely and consistently reliable manner.  Since the standards were intended to develop consistency in information requests among location consultants for almost anything they might ever want to know about an area, the result is neither user-friendly for investors and their advisors, nor supplier-friendly for those who invest in providing such data in the hope of supporting potential investment in their areas more effectively.

To see this, look at the current standards as published on the IEDC website, and then imagine how one would maintain so much information, and how one would use it to select suitable business locations to consider for investment.  A massive amount of data does not necessarily provide an efficient or effective solution to the decision needs of investors.  It is just one tool in the process, and not necessarily as important a tool as it would have been just a few years ago.  The market has changed.

The location decision process has been shifting away from old database-oriented screening processes, with the possible exception of data which GIS tools can help users to visualize.  Many of the available statistics were always a fairly blunt instrument for trying to simplify the complexity of comparisons of business climates for investors among many location alternatives.  The data was, in effect, a proxy for better knowledge about what the area was really like for investors.  It provided a simple and objective way to identify alternatives which might otherwise be overlooked, and to screen out many places which didn't fit specific criteria (whether valid or not).

Past ideas overtaken by events and real location selection experience

The point is that the Internet has altered the situation which prompted the original data standards initiative, and transformed how location selection work is performed.

Rather than try to evaluate and screen out or select an area for more careful analysis and field research through the manipulation of raw data gathered for other purposes, the Internet now makes a massive amount of background information about areas readily available.  The quality of such information may still be inconsistent, and it may still be difficult to compare areas objectively when the facts are presented in a selective and inconsistent way for the sake of promoting business investment activity in an area, but there is now far more knowledge available than what can be inferred through the analysis of statistical data.  A central data repository is far more limited in value.

The notion a few years ago that executives or their advisors would pick potential locations through attribute-based queries against a standardized database and perhaps automatically send out emails to request proposals from the selected areas simply does not seem to reflect the market.  There is no such database.  There is no evidence of demand for it, nor demand for such an RFP process by the executives or advisors.  Like an answer to a question that nobody is asking, it seems to be irrelevant.

The idea that the location selection process could be automated in this manner has simply not proven to be the case, nor does it appear likely.  The complexity of business location decisions is not readily reduced to an automated process based on data elements.  It still requires careful research, personal contacts, market knowledge, experience, and business judgment which is unique to each project.  The role of the Internet makes a large data repository with query and analysis tools and an automated RFP process for location selection even less likely to emerge.  Who wants to use it?  One can readily identify any area of interest, look up their website for more details, and contact them directly.  Why spam a list of area representatives with a project RFP or information request on the basis of a database query as in the past, whether by fax or email?  It isn't necessary.  Much better market knowledge is readily available already.

The data guidelines are useful, but the idea of creating automated tools to select and contact potential locations has gone nowhere, and seems destined to go nowhere.  There is no evidence of real market demand for it among executives, their advisors, or area representatives.  Similarly, the idea that location selection would follow an online auction model, driven by competing responses to standardized RFP's by e-mail, also seems very unrealistic.  Location selection is not likely to be driven by database query tools which generate RFP's by email.  Better solutions are already available.

Why is the data standards initiative still relevant?

As explained at left, the many data elements identified through the IEDC guidelines can still be quite useful, but now the entire initiative exists in a very different context than just a few years ago.  It is fairly fast and easy to "drill down" for greater details on most areas, and to identify and reach contacts whose local market knowledge can better address the fundamental questions behind the data analysis.  The idea of a central repository of standardized data about many areas may not be a good model in the context of a highly decentralized network for sharing more detailed local knowledge.

In other words, why was the data being used?  It was typically being used to search for areas which fit the expectations of the project planners for the business environment in which they would expect to be more successful.  Since investors could not afford to research many potential locations in detail, the data screening work provided a fairly fast and efficient way to narrow the alternatives to a manageable "short list" of places to research more directly for suitability for the needs of a specific company project.

The Internet, including initiatives such as this business and others, is transforming that situation.  Instead of reliance upon database screening techniques which would have been common among location consultants 10 or 20 years ago, it is now possible to identify or screen out potential locations on the basis of quick reference to far more detailed information which is designed specifically for support of such investment decisions on the basis of primary research or very timely direct local market knowledge, rather than published secondary or tertiary data and analysis compiled for other purposes.  Executives and their advisors can quickly consider many places through the review of very relevant and timely facts and analysis which reflect detailed knowledge of local business conditions as developed through the work of economic development professionals and other service providers or companies in an area.

Instead of using the analysis of data gathered for other purposes as a proxy for better knowledge about business conditions in an area, which was always a very imperfect or "blunt instrument" for making location decisions, professionals can quickly perform fairly detailed research and develop contacts to evaluate potential locations carefully from the earliest stages of project planning.  The "long list" and "short list" processes are driven less by database analysis, and more by direct research into whether an area seems to fit the critical needs of a particular project, however they may be defined.  There is less need for database manipulation and desk research, which makes it possible to devote more time and resources to the field work to ensure that the final location selection will be a good one.

Value for economic development professionals - not just location consultants

In this context, the original "data standards" project would seem to be overtaken by events, but there is still value in the process of measuring the attributes of business conditions of potential interest to investors in a consistent way.

The data will be used less by consultants to screen for suitable locations, because location consultants can already find most of the data they need without the lengthy information requests which originally prompted the data standards effort.

In any case, it can still be useful to document specific attributes of local business conditions of potential interest to investors.  It is a framework to share useful local market knowledge, rather than to simply create a huge data repository.  It becomes a common tool for economic development professionals to perform their work through more than just standardization of responses to consultants, but it also becomes a standard "back end" for websites, promotional presentations, and other work to provide a faster and better response to investors. 

Areas can also use consistent data to benchmark their own performance relative to competing areas, or to track their own progress over time according to their own development strategies.

In short, the data is not just for location consultants, nor do all areas need to invest in the work necessary to maintain all of the potential data, or to maintain it in one place.  A more decentralized solution is viable in the context of the Internet, despite the convenience of a standardized database for research purposes.  Consistency in data will be helpful, whether the data is in a central repository for many areas, or maintained through a decentralized data structure such as many separate websites for areas.  It is not essential that all of the data be in one place.  One simply needs to know where to find it, and know whether it is comparable to data elsewhere, as it should be.

The point is that investors need a way to find good solutions to their project needs.  A standardized database may be helpful as a starting point to narrow a search, but the Internet makes a far more expansive search viable so that investors can find good solutions which the old data screening techniques might not identify.

The key is to share local market knowledge more effectively, and to help investors and their advisors to differentiate areas in practical ways which would not be possible or easy simply through database queries and analysis.  The challenge isn't simply to aggregate more standardized data for somebody to manipulate.  What data really captures and clearly identifies the benefits of an area?  By definition, the things which differentiate one area from another differ, so the challenge is to figure out what really matters most for a specific project.  There are trade-offs.  Each area has pros and cons.  Standardized data can be a useful tool, but database manipulation and analysis is not a solution to the complex location selection challenge.