I look back on my column from a year ago — CompanyWeek at two years: Six takeaways as manufacturing surges — and grimace. I’ve learned so much in a year.

With that in mind, as CompanyWeek begins year four, here are six new takeaways based on a fresh look at last year’s conclusions and what I got wrong – and right.

Last year’s takeaway: 1. Manufacturing’s cross-industry comeback continues unabated.

Today it would be more accurate to say that productivity growth continues unabated, though some industries are faring better than others.

As we’ve chronicled all year, food and beverage manufacturing is the fastest growing sector in the state, confirmed again last week by the Denver Business Journal. Aerospace and bioscience manufacturing, transformed by technology and benefitting from Colorado’s rich innovation ecosystem, are equally dynamic. The seeds of a true American manufacturing comeback in outdoor gear and accessories is also germinating, but supply-chain challenges are a drag on what otherwise is promising long term prospects for more Colorado-made products.

Manufacturers wed to energy or growth in overseas markets are more challenged. Consumer products made here face stiff competition from global competitors, who still manufacture less expensively. Workforce continues to be a barrier for others.

But despite these headline-grabbing challenges, manufacturing is a new regional economic force, with consumers driving innovation on one hand, and automation and high-tech fabrication reshaping the sector on the other.

So here’s the new takeaway: It’s not all roses, but manufacturing’s new look is manifest in Colorado and the West.

Last year: 2. Public and private sector support isn’t keeping pace with manufacturing’s advance.

Last year I bemoaned the spotty understanding of manufacturing among those who report on economy or provide development services often using taxpayer dollars. The business press is still maddeningly uninformed; witness the hyperventilating last week about the PMI falling under 50 for the first time in six months.

But manufacturers are changing the perception of the sector by reshoring jobs whenever possible and creating a new era of U.S. competitiveness. Development of the supply chain is critical. The revelation is that we don’t fully understand what supply chain development means.

New takeaway: It’s cool to be a manufacturer again, but as the supply chain goes, so goes manufacturing.

Last year: 3. Manufacturing should be a ‘Key Industry’ in a simplified economic Blueprint.

Last year I argued that dropping ‘Advanced’ and listing ‘Manufacturing’ as a key industry sector would shine a well-deserved light on all manufacturing and simplify access to a confusing system. It’s still a good idea. We learned last week that Government Workers Now Outnumber Manufacturing Workers by 9,932,000. Manufacturers need less blueprints, associations, new designations, and taxpayer-funded bureaucracies.

Today manufacturers are quick to advocate smaller government and less regulation. We’re less enthusiastic about rolling back a raft of taxpayer-funded subsidies, awards, and grants coursing the system, many without accountability that seperates worthy investments from well-intentioned spending.

New takeaway: Less regulation or more public-sector programs? Which will you have?

Last year: 4. Congressional inaction in support of manufacturing is a travesty.

Elected officials do less and campaign more. As we lower our public-policy standards, it’s important we ramp up private sector efforts to get important things done.

Beyond that, it’s up to local officials to lead. Want to get in the manufacturing game? Develop a small business ecosystem friendly for startups and supply-chain infrastructure that sustains maker-business growth.

New takeaway: Work through the private sector to get things done — and go directly to voters with key issues like infrastructure.

Last year: 5. Where robust support has developed, it now must evolve.

See all of the above. Manufacturing growth hinges most on private/public collaboration around supply chain development.

One other tactic worth a big mention: Brands making things here still face consumer resistance on price. For many maker businesses, it’s still more expensive to make things in the U.S. Colorado’s marketing messages should evolve to support brands operating here. Raise the profile of Colorado-made products. Borrow a few dollars from tourism’s massive war chest to fund a national campaign about the high-quality, authentic products made here. Don’t add to the ad spend; refine it on behalf of industry.

New takeaway: Use Colorado’s strong tourism brand to better promote the state as a destination for lifestyle manufacturing.

Last year: 6. Manufacturers must agree on the way forward — one that involves a bigger tent.

Last year this column was a call for recognition of the sector. Things have changed: manufacturing’s profile is higher, it’s companies and leaders now the topic of conversation statewide and focus of more media coverage.

It’s time to play the role of leading economic driver and ask less of government, trade, and those we elect. Let’s put campaigning and campaign promises behind us.

New takeaway: 2017 is the year of the private sector — the year of the manufacturer.

Bart Taylor is publisher of CompanyWeek. Reach him at btaylor@companyweek.com.

Data continues to trickle out this summer that ranks and grades states for business and manufacturing prowess. It’s been a better month for the region even as analysts and journalists continue to struggle to get a handle on a fast-changing manufacturing sector.

In CNBC’s annual ranking of America’s Top States for Business 2016 Utah grabbed the top spot, Texas was second and Colorado third. California (32), New Mexico (39), and Nevada (40) found the lower half of the rankings among other western neighbors.

Utah also crashed the top five of PricewaterhouseCoopers’ 2015 Aerospace Manufacturing Attractiveness Rankings, with an impressive overall ranking of four. Colorado was 13th. For Utah, it’s a strong comeback from the Conexus Indiana report that confounded as much as it informed. Despite awarding the state three As out of eight categories, the report gave Utah’s manufacturing sector an overall grade of C. The PwC report is a deserved correction.

Washington, home to global powerhouse Boeing, ranked 12th and pundits there weren’t pleased. The Seattle Times‘ John Talton was incensed:

Washington boasts one of the planet’s two largest aerospace clusters (along with “Aerospace Valley” in Toulouse, France). In addition to Boeing, more than 1,300 aerospace-related companies are located here. In May, 91,700 employees worked in aerospace product and parts manufacturing. This is the backbone that makes Washington the nation’s third largest state for merchandise exports. Aerospace education is ubiquitous. Oh, as for taxes, don’t forget the nearly $9 billion in aerospace tax breaks associated with the 777X.

He concluded, with a sneer, “it appears the rankings are a combination of statistical fluke and reliance on local (potentially boosterish) reports”.

But as we’ve documented the past few weeks, manufacturing is confounding most everyone who’s measuring or writing about it.

Patty Silverstein, president and chief economist at Development Research Partners in Jefferson County, Colorado, chalks up growth in Colorado’s food and beverage manufacturing sector to cannibas. But she’s not sure.

Silverstein made the correlation referencing growth in food manufacturing numbers in a Denver Post article last week:

Recreational cannabis sales began in 2014. That year, “we had a 3.5 percent increase in employment. In 2015, a 4.9 percent increase in food-manufacturing employment,” she said. “The data doesn’t allow us to slice and dice to say, ‘These are indeed edibles or not,’ but the recognition is this is where they would be classified.”

She continued:

“Is it cavalier of me to say (manufacturing growth is directly correlated to the cannabis industry)? Absolutely,” she said. “I cannot prove or disprove it. But you look at who are the new entrants.”

It’s a surprising admission in light of other data and stories we’ve uncovered the past two and a half years, in the form of our weekly features on Colorado’s proliferating food and beverage companies. The ‘new entrants’ are dozens of innovators changing the national food conversation from Boulder, Fort Collins, and Denver and pitching their ideas across the state. They’re in plain sight.*

Colorado economic development officials can’t seem to believe their eyes either. How else to explain the comments of Laura Blomquist, senior manager of strategy and analytics at the state’s Office of Economic Development and International Trade?

In celebrating the state’s strong “knowledge-based” economy and high-percentage of educated workers, Blomquist used words that marginalize Colorado’s strong manufacturing economy. “The United States is transitioning to a post-industrial society increasingly comprised of knowledge-based enterprises,” she said. “These enterprises create higher paying jobs that typically require significant preparation through higher education and a high degree of complexity and innovation in the work itself.

I read recently the U.S. Secretary of Commerce refer to new manufacturing jobs as the “IT jobs of the future.” With manufacturing companies here and elsewhere struggling to find qualified employees, it’s time to roll out a new vocabulary that better meets the needs of a neo-industrial society that includes modern manufacturing.

We’d all be less confused.

Bart Taylor is publisher of CompanyWeek. Contact him at btaylor@companyweek.com.

[*Panelists will be providing an update on Colorado’s natural and organic food sector at next week’s Manufacturing Growth & Financing Conference in Denver. Register here.]

In Colorado we’re ruminating over two reports released last month that rank the state’s manufacturing sector poorly. Tim Heaton, president of the Colorado Advanced Manufacturing Alliance, follows up on a column I wrote about the Conexus Indiana 2016 Manufacturing & Logistics Report Card for the Unites States that gave Colorado a ‘D’ in overall health for its manufacturing sector.

Utah fared better, but not much. Despite ‘A’ grades in three of the eight categories, Utah’s overall grade was a ‘C’, placing it behind such manufacturing juggernauts as Connecticut, Kansas and Tennessee. Both states also did poorly in a Site Selection magazine ranking of ‘manufacturing investments per capita’, a measure of million-dollar capital investments in manufacturing facilities per million residents. Colorado ranked 47th, Utah 39th.

Both Heaton and I found plenty to grumble about, especially in the Conexus report, from dated data to questionable methodology. I suspect that when or if Todd Bingham at the Utah Manufacturers Association gets around to responding he’d have similar issues with data that’s almost three years old, or bias that tends to award legacy logistics and supply-chain infrastructure that today struggles to support emerging growth sectors.

But the data is not without merit. It provides meaningful perspective for those like us who aspire to develop world-class manufacturing ecosystems. Wanna know how far we have to go? Kentucky ranked 1st in per capita investment with 173 manufacturing projects topping $1 million in capital or involving 20 new manufacturing jobs. Colorado and Utah each had nine. Think rust-belt legacy doesn’t matter? Think again.

Colorado’s ‘D’ grade is also focusing the conversation on areas where indeed, the state’s logistics and support network undermines economic development and manufacturing investment. Transportation may top the list. Interstate 70 has a reputation that transcends the state. It’s a lesson in inaction Utah policy-makers would do well to learn and not gloss-over.

Utah’s ‘A’s, in Worker Benefit Costs, Tax Climate, and Expected Fiscal Liability Gap, and a ‘B’ in Human Capital underscore its transparent workforce strength, a building block for success in manufacturing. Where other states are forecast to struggle mightily to train and equip a next generation of employees, Utah seems extraordinarily well-positioned in this critical area. Companies like JD Machine, profiled this week in CompanyWeek, are national models in adopting progressive workforce development strategies.

Ironically, Utah’s ‘B’ in Sector Diversity may play more to Conexus bias than communicate a true strength of the sector today. Yes, bioscience, aerospace and advanced manufacturing lead a fairly diverse sector that also boasts industrial food and energy stalwarts.

But manufacturing diversity in the future will also be defined by robust, dynamic artisanal sectors responding to changing consumer tastes that favor locally made food and beverage and lifestyle and consumer products; or feature a wave of start-up, technology-informed manufacturing companies that sustain world-class innovation in whatever form. Is Utah a hotbed of entrepreneurship and innovation in manufacturing, sustained by a progressive vibe that informs business environments in California, New York and even Colorado?

Yes and no. I’ve written extensively about Utah’s emerging leadership position as a hotbed of outdoor industrial development, namely Ogden’s growing ecosystem of lifestyle manufacturing companies and initiatives.

But at times, the cultural attributes that provide economic stability and offer sustained workforce advantages in Utah don’t translate into the state being a trend-setter. For example the natural and organic food tsunami of the past decade, a true revolution that’s changed the way America eats, has been slower to catch on here. It’s altered the economic landscape in neighboring Colorado and farther west in Oregon and Washington, where a food manufacturing renaissance is long underway.

Better late than never. We’re involved in a conversation with innovators in Utah’s natural food and products space to accelerate development of sector that’s simmering just under boil. More on this initiative soon.

On balance, other states like Colorado and California would likely trade manufacturing challenges with Utah as states strive to improve the sector. Workforce is a deep, systemic challenge that requires myriad investments — and time. Standing-up resources to accelerate growth in promising new sectors feels less daunting. We’re about to find out.

Improving Utah’s ‘C’ grade will be a positive outcome.

Like a left-right combination from Muhammad Ali, Colorado manufacturing was staggered this month by two reports that portray a struggling sector. What to make of the news?

Conexus Indiana’s 2016 Manufacturing & Logistics Report Card for the United States gave Colorado a ‘D’ grade for overall manufacturing sector health. The report grades states in eight categories, from sector diversification to global reach to human capital. Only New Mexico, Hawaii, and Alaska fared worse, with F’s.

Misery loves company, and based on data compiled by Conway Data Analytics for Site Selection magazine, Colorado ranked 47th in per capita manufacturing investments in 2015. The California Manufacturers & Technology Association analyzed the data and shared Colorado’s numbers with us. (California ranked 50th, a downer for an economy that boasts nearly 40,000 manufacturers.)

There’s so much to consider here, but let’s stay high-level and try and sort out some straightforward implications.

An easy path would be to simply discount the Conexus methodology and by all means, there’s plenty to work with if Colorado economic officials cared enough to respond. Tom Bugnitz, CEO of Manufacturer’s Edge, didn’t have to work hard to determine the Conexus report was based on 2014 data, or that data sometimes worked at cross-purposes. “We get high marks for productivity and innovation,” Bugnitz told me, “which means we need less workers, which gets us lower marks for overall health because it lowers the number of manufacturing employees as a percent of total employment.”

Indeed, the Manufacturing Industry Health grade — D — is measured by “the share of total income earned by manufacturing employees in each state, the wage premium paid to manufacturing workers relative to the other states’ employees, and the share of manufacturing employment per capita.”

Colorado’s other D grade among the eight categories was in Global Reach, or the “export-related measures of per capita exported manufacturing goods and the growth of manufacturing exports.” I’ll leave others more informed on export trends to determine whether a near-flunking grade is warranted, but Colorado seems well positioned to grow exports. But then again we consider agricultural goods part of the maker economy, and Colorado’s a national ag export leader, so I object from the get-go.

Colorado gets a C in Sector Diversification based on 2014 data. It’s already a dated statistic. Diversification is the state’s manufacturing calling card, from high-tech fabrication to device makers in bioscience to the craft food and beverage tsunami to a burgeoning lifestyle industry. Food and beverage has been the fastest growing manufacturing sector in the state since 2014.

All that said, it would be narrow-minded to assert that the Conexus report is flawed and therefore irrelevant. Data is data, and as a percent of GDP, or employment, Colorado’s manufacturing sector is underperforming compared to others states — states that would kill to have Colorado’s broader growth metrics. I’ve also chronicled the state’s challenge in developing a more robust supply chain and how the lack of a cohesive manufacturing development strategy is a drag on sector growth. Manufacturers are not without fault. Companies remain more comfortable operating in industry silos.

Yet manufacturing is thriving. We’ve profiled over 700 manufacturing and supply-chain companies since September 2013. We’ll profile 700 more in the next few years. It’s certainly entrepreneurial, and companies are scattered throughout different industries, which at times makes it hard to measure – and grade. Until growth companies and sectors mature and begin making a statistical difference that matters on a national scale, enduring bad grades or scores may be part of the program.

Like the aforementioned investment ranking. Colorado now ranks 47th in manufacturing investments per capita, an interesting stat that tracks manufacturing –related construction or expansion projects across the U.S. that involved over $1 million in capital or more than 20 new jobs investments. Of 2641 projects in 2015, Colorado hosted nine. Kentucky, a state with 4.3 million people, led the nation with 173. It’s a reminder how deep a manufacturing community other states lean on to attract new companies and expansions. The supply chains are long.

But how many companies do we need to shine a light on to get elected officials, economic developers, business groups and yes manufacturers, excited about what’s happening here? Who’s paying attention? California ranked 50^th, a number that didn’t sit well. Its manufacturing trade association was quick to lament its status and challenge policy-makers.

We’ll gather July 27 in Denver for the 2nd annual Manufacturing Growth & Financing Conference. Increasing the level of investment in worthy manufacturing companies is the objective of the conference. Even if you’re not looking for money, it’s important you’re there. Investors need more awareness about companies shaping this sector.

Don’t be satisfied with a ‘D’, or being ranked 47th out of 50 states. I’m not. See you this July.

Bart Taylor is publisher of CompanyWeek. Email him at btaylor@companyweek.com.