Colorado’s economic development landscape is an alphabet-soup mix of acronyms and trade names. Entities that touch the maker and manufacturing sector alone include OEDIT, CAMA, CAMT, CACI, WCMA, CWIDB, CBSA, CCIA, WTC, CBDA and others I’m sure I’ve left out, not to mention city and community chambers and EDC’s.

Collectively, it’s an amazing collection of smart people, very good at what they do. It’s also becoming a startlingly large bureaucracy. Economic development is big business. It’s a competitive game that takes money to make money.

The upside of today’s system is that member companies or affiliates get quality support in the regional and national chase for influence, dollars, and incentives. The downside is that business is getting squeezed. Companies are being asked to do and spend more, with multiple groups, and expect less in return. And the high stakes at play between developers can work to lessen collaboration with sectors. Which kind of defeats the whole purpose.

It can be refreshing when entities find ways to partner to advance everyone’s interest. For manufacturers, one idea percolating in southern Colorado has the long-term goal of doing just that.

SCBP – the Southern Colorado Business Partnership – is partnering with CAMT – the Colorado Association for Manufacturing and Technology, to reprise an idea that’s been visited and revisited with varying degrees of, well, futility.

The idea is simple enough: encourage manufacturers, their partners and providers, to participate in building a database of key information that’s searchable, easy to use, and highly targeted to others within the maker and manufacturer ecosystem. The end game is to build a more highly connected community. A single community.

The challenge in the past has been to convince companies that a tool like this might lead to business, and as a result, convince them to invest the time to enter data and use the platform.

CAMT CEO Tom Bugnitz believes this time may be different. “Companies are starting to realize there is a lot they don’t know about their potential partners”, he says, “who they are, what they do, how they can help their business. Competition is much stronger now, and with the information tools available, companies are looking for anything that helps them compete. Manufacturers have evolved so that they are now ready and willing to use data to improve their competitiveness, and they see this tool as one piece of the information puzzle for doing that.”

In the companies we’ve profiled, there does seem to be a high interest to be better connected. Macro-trends are favoring domestic production, and companies here increasingly look to local and regional sources to meet growing demand for talent and expertise, money and materials.

CAMT’s Bugnitz sees supply-chain as the big win. “The key idea is Colorado manufacturers finding Colorado suppliers. Companies know each other now through existing personal knowledge and informal networking. This activity will increase everyone’s awareness of what’s being made in Colorado, allow companies to quickly identify potential new suppliers and new customers, and keep more business in Colorado.

“Over time this effort will create a more and more detailed view of the Colorado manufacturing network”, he adds, “allowing manufacturers to streamline their supply chains for faster product delivery, product development, and cheaper costs.”

If CAMT, SCBP and the coalition being formed to develop the tool can persuade southern Colorado manufacturers to participate, an even bigger ‘win’ for the community would be a statewide implementation of the as-of-yet unnamed database tool. CAMT, one of 61 MEPs (manufacturing extension partnerships) across the country, already plays in a bigger sandbox. Bugnitz has eyes for a tool that would serve the statewide community of manufacturers.

With so many entities vying for the support of makers and manufacturers, each offering a suite of services and assistance, CAMT and SCBP’s challenge of capturing the attention and interest of otherwise busy companies, seems daunting. There’s also the challenge of demonstrating ease-of-use: technology solutions often bring with them a perception that loads of time is needed to learn a new platform.

But the payoff for participating companies may be worth the effort. Connecting the statewide community with a single, open, and comprehensive resource would be a major accomplishment.

One the entire alphabet might readily support.

History repeats itself and one might easily conclude that the heartbeat of Colorado business is once again energy. Not that oil and gas ever stopped flowing, but the shale boom, headlines of a forthcoming investment gusher and media’s opportunistic content push evoke Denver circa-1980, when the Petroleum Club was hip and Energy the business brand.

We’ll have learned nothing if that’s the case. Encana and Noble, Anadarko and Kodiak and dozens of others are terrific companies. But should energy again be the region’s economic calling card? Even the energy sector might see the pitfalls of such an eventuality.

But if not energy, who? Who’s shaping the character of the Colorado economy? What’s the new soul of Colorado business?

Colorado’s economy is service-centric. Government is the single largest employer, with state and local public-sector budgets on a steep upward curve even as federal spending slows. A growing population requires more services, like education. But other services like trade and transportation, health-care, utilities and professional services are also expanding to keep pace.

The influence of the service sector is manifest in the donor pool of the the state’s most powerful economic development entity, the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, where nearly all its ‘major investors’ are service businesses:

Is service then the new soul of Colorado business? As important as healthcare and finance are, again, probably not. But aside from Xcel, an energy-service provider, MillerCoors is the only maker/manufacturer on the list.

There was a time when Coors was Colorado’s bellwether business brand. Today it’s difficult to ascertain whether Molson Coors and its joint venture with SAB Miller, MillerCoors, values its Colorado roots at all. Frankly, Anheuser Busch can make as strong a present-day case as Coors for its Colorado-connection.

Gates Corporation was once an iconic Denver-based global company that manufactured here. Today, it’s tearing-down its historic physical presence in Denver and arguably what’s left of any meaningful brand connection to the community, which is unfortunate for its 400+ Colorado employees.

Lockheed Martin and dozens of other aerospace and electronics firms are terrific companies and define, in part, Colorado’s new manufacturing brand. Is ‘place’ an important operating principle for the sector? Maybe.

Colorado’s national business reputation is largely shaped by tourism, by iconic brands like Vail and Aspen. But it’s hard to reconcile Vail Resorts as Colorado’s posterchild business brand. Vail’s leadership has long acted like its outgrown Colorado.

I’d argue Colorado’s tourism brand is a more compelling asset in the hands of a new generation of operator who sees cross-over value in leveraging tourism on behalf of the entire state. Innovative operators like Monarch Mountain and Silverton who relate more closely to Colorado’s other growing lifestyle brands.

Like craft beer manufacturers. Colorado’s now the leading state exporter of craft beer in the nation. We’re also the international epicenter of a natural foods and natural products tsumani. Colorado agriculture is also sustaining an expanding wine sector – with increasingly relevant national brands.

Colorado also continues to rank high in nurturing new business start-ups – in categories that play to the state’s lifestyle attributes. A wave of lifestyle manufacturing growth-companies may emerge in the next three-to-five years if collectively, we can rally around the challenge of keeping these firms in business.

For me, the new heart and soul of Colorado business are companies and leaders who live here because they want to be here, see value in ‘place’ as a result, and view national and international opportunity through the lens of company-building and sustained growth here, in this community.

Want a soulful experience in keeping with a new Colorado lifestyle brand? Stay at Britt and Don Jackson’s Super 8 in Salida. Ride the Panorama lift to the top of Monarch. Bestride the Divide. Zip-up your Fly Low jacket to cover your Voormi layers, lock-in to your Meier or Wagner skis or Weston board, nibble a 34 Degrees cracker, and ski or ride to the bar and order an Oscar Yella Pils, Montanya rum or Woods High Mountain whiskey.

And consider the future of Colorado business.

Do university rankings matter?

The easy answer it that it depends. For schools, the higher the ranking the more meaningful the list.

But with competition for students intensifying, rankings now generate more than passing interest, especially for those without the top-25 pedigree. A higher ranking can translate into more students, more tuition dollars. As reported in the Washington Post last week, “the number of new high school graduates peaked in 2011, after 17 years of growth, and is not projected to reach a new high until 2024, according to the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.” The race is on. Students mean dollars and dollars mean growth, influence, a more stable future.

Rankings also provide another perspective on a question we’re asking here, and that is, how well is higher-education answering local industry’s call for a workforce of the future? We know there a ‘skills-gap’. Who’s answering the bell?

Most of us are familiar with the U.S. News & Worlds Report annual ranking of universities. But Thomson Reuters’ Times Higher Education’s World University Rankings provides the additional filter of international competiveness. The results are fascinating if a bit disconcerting.

As with past years American institutions dominate the top of the list:

1. California Institute of Technology
2. Harvard
3. University of Oxford
4. Stanford
5. MIT
6. Princeton
7. University of Cambridge
8. California Berkeley
9. University of Chicago
10. Imperial College London

Three Colorado universities make the top 250 – the University of Colorado (97), the Colorado School of Mines (139), and Colorado State University (276). The University of Denver isn’t listed, nor is Colorado College, though U.S. News ranks DU (91) and Colorado College (31) in the National Liberal Arts Colleges category. CU is (86) on U.S. News’ U.S.-only ranking, Mines is also (91) and CSU (121.) Metro State University, Colorado’s up-and-comer, ranks (23) in Regional Colleges, West.

As predictable the list can be – the top universities are ranked in similar fashion on most lists – the results also challenge conventional wisdom.

The popular narrative here is that California is anti-business, that a flood of taxes and regulation are driving business out. But boy can they educate. California’s network of public institutions dot the top 100: Berkeley (8), Los Angeles (12) San Diego (40), Davis (52), Santa Barbara (33), and Irvine (93), all appear before the first Colorado school on the list – CU at (91). Another, UC Santa Cruz (136) is listed above Mines. And UC Riverside (148) rounds out the stellar California public class ahead of CSU.

Even if a higher number of California’s grads move out-of-state to pursue a career, in business-friendlier states, higher-ed is churning out a stream of quality graduates to drive service and industry.

What to make of Colorado’s modest showing – and does it even matter? How can universities here improve their rankings – and do they even want to?

The Times methodology involves performance indicators in five areas. Teaching: the learning environment; Research: volume, income and reputation; Citations: research influence; Industry income: innovation; International outlook: staff, students and research.

In its analysis, the Times notes that universities are specializing to make improvements in operational areas reflected in the list criteria, changes that would in effect drive them up the rankings. American universities generally “do better than the overall top 200 on teaching, research and citations.” Their “citation” scores are particularly strong: 18 of the top 20 performers in the table hail from the US.” the Times notes.

Should moving up the Times and US News lists be a priority? Should colleges tailor curriculum and programs to meeting the ‘establishment’s’ definition of success as defined by the rankings? Or should schools instead seek to better match graduates with opportunities? The oft-quoted research from McKinsey & Company, that 42% of worldwide employers believe recent college graduates are ready for work, while 72% of academic institutions believe graduates are adequately prepared, speaks volumes.

Quality is never be a bad thing. Especially in volume. California’s business environment benefits from its rich pool of diverse, award-winning universities. But ensuring graduates match industry needs seems a higher priority, to the extent they’re different.

We’ll hear from Colorado’s universities in the coming weeks about the path ahead, including an interview with Metro State’s President, Stephen Jordan, on a manufacturing initiative that may redefine how industry and higher-ed collaborate to educate a new workforce.

Behind great brands are often stories of astute decision-making at pivotal times. Osprey, a growing Colorado company and respected global lifestyle brand based in Cortez, was at a crossroads early in life, choosing to stay in business by moving its manufacturing operations offshore. Now a “mature” brand (read Osprey’s profile), the company hopes to build on its success and relocate at least some of its future manufacturing operations here. A difficult decision has in the end paid dividends, with more to come.

A similar moment played out for Pasta Fresca’s management in 2003, when as Eric Peterson describes in his CompanyWeek profile, the Boulder company ‘pivoted to its brand-partner model’. The move fundamentally changed the company, putting Fresca Foods on a path to fast growth. It’s also having a profound impact on the industry.

As Executive VP Liz Myslik describes it, “Fresca’s model is to take on products with an established demand” – to become a ‘supply-chain’ partner with growing food companies by providing manufacturing and production capabilities that Myslik says often inhibit growth. The arrangement allows partners to focus on things like driving sales, on marketing, on brand extension.

In retrospect, it was a brilliant idea – the right business strategy at the right time. A company was essentially reinvented and in the process became a much-needed engine for industry growth, providing key services to other growth-minded companies. Fresca’s innovation has helped shape the national reputation Colorado now enjoys as an epicenter for growth in the natural foods industry.

Fresca’s model should inspire similar thinking in other manufacturing sectors here. In the maker and manufacturing space, visionaries and entrepreneurs often bring a singular expertise or passion to a business idea but lack skills or resources needed to scale beyond start-up.

It’s easy to envision a Fresca Foods-like approach in apparel and other soft goods – like packs – where Colorado’s brightest design and lifestyle entrepreneurs might lean on a cut-and-sew operation that provides critical early-and-mid stage manufacturing help. Or, a forward-thinking financier might consider a ‘MFG Fund’ to capitalize small business. The need for sustaining financing remains acute.

But if Colorado believes a growing manufacturing base is key to more sustainable economic growth, to higher middle-class wages, to economic development tied to industry attributes unique to the state, then risk-taking is better than losing jobs and influence offshore.

Those who support or service the region’s goods-producing sector would do well to emulate the inspired leadership we’re witnessing in maker and manufacturing businesses and take bold steps to move it forward. Focusing even more sharply on entrepreneurs poised to grow who nevertheless are in need of operational help would be one such step. Only good things will follow.

Bart Taylor is Founder and Publisher of CompanyWeek.

A common theme that runs through most of our weekly business profiles is the challenge of workforce. Regardless of industry Colorado manufacturers can’t find enough qualified employees. It’s the Colorado jobs paradox: unemployment here remains relatively high, but a lack of qualified occupational workers is a drag on economic growth, or at least on the manufacturing sector.

The reality certainly isn’t lost on policy-makers. Earlier this year, the Colorado Legislature earmarked a million dollars or so in HB1165, career ‘pathway’ legislation that would effectively improve coordination between higher-ed and industry to better match graduates with jobs.

For its part industry is intent on ‘re-branding’ manufacturing, on changing the perception of the sector from the “dirty, dumb, dangerous, and dying” business of old to the modern, clean, ‘advanced’ state of much of the industrial base today. The idea is to fundamentally change the way young people and their families view manufacturing employment.

IndustryWeek columnist Patricia Panchak suggests that so far, the effort has failed, and that the latest iteration of this approach is likewise destined to miss the mark. The effort focuses on changing industry parlance to better reflect today’s workforce.

“The Association for Manufacturing Technology, noting that the term “workforce” doesn’t speak to the more intellectually demanding nature of factory work, has coined the term “smartforce.” Meanwhile…the Reshoring Initiative suggests that we begin referring to the “midskill” occupations as professions and the workers as professionals as is done in Germany and Switzerland. No mother wants her children to grow up to be workers, he says. She wants them to be professionals. Besides, he adds, “as manufacturing skilled workers take on more mental and less physical responsibilities, the terminology is increasingly appropriate.”

Panchak argues the effort doesn’t far enough, that language alone won’t change things. That until the true ‘value of labor’ again becomes the common language of business, re-instilled in today’s workforce, any effort to rebrand manufacturing will fall short.

It’s hard to argue the point, but as a practical matter, changing the perception of manufacturing here seems more straightforward.

Colorado (and the region) has become the poster-child for what’s cool about manufacturing. Young people come to Colorado to live and work, often in that order, and here more employment opportunities are developing around lifestyle manufacturing. We’re birthing a new generation of entrepreneurs and companies in industry sectors that are highly marketable to the workforce of the future, who view employment through the lens of lifestyle.

Our tactics should evolve to catch-up to with what business is already building here. We need to tell the stories of Colorado growth-companies making beer, electronics, energy-efficient anything, skis, clothes, organic food, and iPhone cases – things interesting and important to young people. Inspire a future workforce with stories of today’s entrepreneurs.

Of course that’s our mission here, but a sustained private/public collaboration would also help. The story of regional manufacturing needs more effective stewardship – not only from government but from its own. Colorado is home to global manufacturing brands. They need to be convinced that ‘here’ is worth investing in.

Investment. The most tangible, impactful development in occupational employment would be hyper-growth in new company launches. More successful launches mean more companies to publicize, which in turn creates higher interest in a modern manufacturing career. Want to change the perception of manufacturing? Make it easier for small makers and manufacturers to get financed.

More on that Mt. Elbert-sized challenge later.