Designing a New Economic Future

GSP's richard Overmoyer talks about growing companies, jobs and wealth from the ground up

First, explain what you mean by “Economic Architecture” and why GSP chose this name for its newest practice area.
The conventional TBED (technologybased economic development) vernacular, I believe, fails to capture what communities and local economies really need. Economic development strategies must focus on entrepreneurship, workforce development, industry-university connectivity, public policy, and other fundamental building blocks, beyond just research and technology.

We believe that the construction metaphor and “Economic Architecture” really encapsulate the modern economic development paradigm. Communities must build a sturdy, sustainable backbone for their economy, based on extensive due diligence and planning. GSP designs economic development blueprints that don't just look great on paper but yield a realistic, “livable” structure.

How has the national economic development landscape changed in recent years?
A full answer to this question would take more space than PA Manufacturer can spare. But the following are some of the most important realizations we have made:

Economic development leaders now have more data and experience to draw from than ever before. Over the last decade, we have seen a tremendous proliferation of economic development organizations and programs around the world. Most of these regional strategies were developed in a vacuum with very little examination of other regions and proven Best Practices. We now have an opportunity to take stock of these strategies and understand what is working and what can be replicated in other places.

We can no longer look at “Technology” as its own industry. Technology and innovation have become integral components to literally every industry. Look at the home construction industry. Would traditional economic thinkers view this as a technology industry? Of course not. But with the advent of “green” building and greater energy consciousness, homebuilders and suppliers rely on innovation like never before. Even the maritime and agriculture industries are becoming technology industries.

State and local incentives have created a virtual zero-sum game of company attraction and retention. With every state or region now offering some package of grants and loans to attract the next big corporate headquarters, we must focus more heavily on growing new companies to be competitive. Services and support for entrepreneurs, industryuniversity collaboration, a capable workforce, and tax policies will be critical in developing local economies.

Performance metrics must be crystalclear. Many economic development initiatives fail or are perceived to fail because they are launched with a weak, misunderstood or non-existent set of performance metrics. Whether measuring job creation, revenues or some other factor, metrics must be easily calculated and explicitly outlined for the community before the launch of a new initiative.

With your background in government, what role do you see public policy playing in the future of economic development?
I can say emphatically that Pennsylvania is one of the most aggressive and progressive states in the country when it comes to economic development programs. In fact, we are often the envy of many states I visit in my travels. While I believe we can make important strides in our business tax policies and other areas, Pennsylvania has created a world-class infrastructure for companies and entrepreneurs.

The federal government, on the other hand, must adapt its programs and policies to accommodate the modern economic landscape. The Department of Labor's own data suggests that over 80 percent of the jobs created in the U.S. over the next decade will be created by small and entrepreneurial business. And yet, the federal government's investment in entrepreneurial development activities is paltry. Organizations like InnovationWorks or Idea Foundry have few places to turn for federal funding support.

Congress believed by funding basic research and passing the Bayh-Dole Act in the early '80s, that technology commercialization and economic development would take care of itself. They believed that the private investment community would provide the “Seed” funding necessary for advanced technology development and eventual commercialization. But, as fewer and fewer skilled investors risk the seed-stage investment game, too many promising companies are struggling to get off the ground. We need the federal government to play a more active role in advanced technology development and provide greater support for entrepreneurs and early-stage investors.

Mr. Richard Overmoyer is a Principal at GSP Consulting and Director of the firm's Economic Architecture Practice. Before joining GSP, Rich served as the Deputy Secretary for the Technology Investment Office in the Commonwealth's Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED). While at the Technology Investment Office, Overmoyer managed several major initiatives including the Keystone Innovation Zones, the Ben Franklin Technology Development Authority, the Life Science Greenhouses, Tobacco Settlement Investment Board, Industrial Resource Centers, and the CyberStart Initiative. Overall as Deputy Secretary, Rich managed more than $82 million in annual appropriations and more than $1 billion in funds under management with outside investors. Rich has a Master's Degree in Public Administration from the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh.