USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Hillsborough County 2003 manufacturing survey

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Hillsborough County 2003 manufacturing survey
Physical Description:
1 online resource (25 p.) : ill. ;
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida -- Center for Economic Development Research
Publisher:
Center for Economic Development Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Manufacturing industries -- Florida -- Hillsborough County   ( lcsh )
Genre:
statistics   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Statement of Responsibility:
an analysis performed by Center for Economic Development Research, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida.
General Note:
Title from PDF of cover (viewed Sept. 9, 2009).
General Note:
"August 2003."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 002027904
oclc - 436171294
usfldc doi - C63-00046
usfldc handle - c63.46
System ID:
SFS0000322:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s SurveyiHillsborough County 2003 Manufacturing Survey An Analysis Performed by CENTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH College of Business Administration 1 101 Channelside Dr., 2nd Floor N., Tampa, Florida 33602 Of ce: (813) 905-5854 or Fax: (813) 905-5856 August, 2003

PAGE 2

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Surveyii T able of Contents Contents 1. Preface and Executive Summary 1 2. Detailed Results 2 Quality 2 Importance 2 Quality Versus Importance 4 Interest in Students 7 Interest in Receiving Economic Development Information 7 Open-End Responses 8 High Tech Manufacturers 8 Quality Ratings 8 Importance Ratings 10 Quality Versus Importance (High Tech Respondents) 12 Statistical Comparison of non-High Tech Manufacturers versus High Tech Manufacturers 14 Statistical Comparison of Business Climate Quality Factors 15 Statistical Comparison of Other Business Climate Factors 16 Other Statistical Findings 16 Summary Observations 17Appendix I. Research Instruments 18 Appendix II. Identi ed High Tech Research Industry Codes 20 Appendix III. Web Survey 21 Appendix IV. Business Climate Quality Factors: Correlation Matrix 22Innovation Insight 27810 Sky Lake Circle W esley Chapel, FL 33543 Phone: 813.997.2111 http://innovationinsight.com Robert Anderson Dean, College of Business Administration (COBA), USF Dennis G. Colie Director, Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR), COBA, USF Guy Hagen President, Innovation Insight, and Principal Investigator

PAGE 3

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey1 1. Preface and Executive Summary Hillsborough County is located in west central Florida and is one of seven counties often collectively referred to as Tampa Bay. The Hillsborough County Economic Development Department administers programs that sustain and encourage the economic growth of the local economy, including programs that stimulate the creation of quality jobs for the skilled and semi-skilled work force. The Department’s Corporate Business Development (CBD) section is committed to increasing quality job opportunities for the community’s residents by helping to establish, maintain and project Hillsborough County’s business friendly climate to corporations that create and sustain those desirable quality jobs.1The CBD section of the Hillsborough County Economic Development Department commissioned the Hillsborough County 2003 Manufacturing Survey Innovation Insight, in accordance with its Cooperative Agreement with the Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR), conducted the survey and provided an analysis of the survey’s ndings. CEDR is a unit of the College of Business Administration of the University of South Florida (USF), located in T ampa, Florida. CEDR provides information and conducts research on issues related to economic growth and development in the Nation, in the state of Florida, and particularly in the central Florida region. The Center serves the faculty, staff, and students of the College of Business Administration, the University, and individuals and organizations in the University’s service area. CEDR’s activities are designed to further the objectives of the University and speci cally the objectives of the College of Business Administration. 578 manufacturing companies were selected from a commercial database provided by InfoUSA, courtesy of the T ampa Chamber of Commerce / Committee of 100. Surveys and cover letters were mailed by July 7th, with responses collected by mail (self-addressed stamped return envelopes included), facsimile, and internet until July 31, 2003. 75 responses were received, for an estimated response rate of approximately 13%. Overall, the survey responses indicate that the participating manufacturers viewed Hillsborough County as competitive, at least comparable to other U.S. business climates overall. The quality of the overall business climate was rated as “better than average,” with a 3.9 rating out of a possible 5. There are speci c areas where the County excels, such as utilities, air transportation, sports and entertainment, arts and culture. The quality of these business climate factors are rated as better than average by both high-tech, and non high-tech designated respondents. This positive overall rating is due to the fact that the areas of greatest de ciency were still given roughly an “average” rating by respondents. These elements of Hillsborough County’s business climate include insurance, road infrastructure, taxation structures, and nancing methods. Insurance costs stands out as a topic that respondents indicated has the greatest disparity between its current quality and its importance to manufacturing. Although this report has paid particular attention to the most signi cant de ciencies, it is recommended that further assistance and economic development be committed to all of the business climate factors, in order to establish a higher overall standard for the County. Ongoing research will help set that goal, and monitor progress by exploring in more explicit detail how the most signi cant business climate issues affect manufacturers. Statistical ndings suggest that, as perceived by responding manufacturers, Hillsborough County’s overall business climate is best explained by the availability of management professionals, insurance costs, the availability of skilled labor, and the quality of International trade (import / export) competitiveness. Consequently, perceptions of Hillsborough County’s overall business climate could be improved through implementation of programs to address de ciencies in these areas, as well as communication efforts to build awareness of resources and programs that are available in them. Given the closely linked responses between “high-tech” and non high-tech manufacturers, such efforts will bene t both manufacturing sectors equally. Footnotes: 1. Source is www.hillsboroughcounty.org/home.html on 8/14/03.

PAGE 4

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey2 2. Detailed ResultsCombined business climate ratings are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 (following pages). Each business climate factor corresponds to one item on the survey instrument. The gure displays the average rating of all responses as a blue circle, with possible ratings from 1 to 5. The bar spanning each score represents the standard deviation of responses, indicating an overall variability of responses. Detailed scores for each are listed in Table 2 (“quality”, page 9) and Table 3 (“importance”, page 11). Quality The highest rated business climate factors in terms of quality (in descending order) include “Air transportation infrastructure” (above average quality); “Sports and entertainment (above average quality); “Arts and culture activities” (slightly above average quality); “Electric power and utilities infrastructure” (slightly above average quality); and “Telecommunications infrastructure” (slightly above average quality); The ve lowest rated business climate factors in terms of quality (in order) include “Insurance costs” (slightly below average quality); “Local tax structure competitiveness” (slightly below average quality); “City Government responsiveness” (slightly below average quality); “Value of Useful Life depreciation schedule” (slightly below average quality); and “Road Transportation infrastructure” (slightly below average quality); The average quality rating for all business climate factors was 3.18, indicating just slightly better than average quality of manufacturing business climate in Hillsborough County. Overall response rates were consistent with an average standard deviation of +/.94, with the greatest variability of responses shown regarding “local markets for your company’s product”. Overall, the responses paint a picture of Hillsborough County as being more or less competitively “on par” with local manufacturers’ perceptions of other metropolitan manufacturing regions in the U.S. Importance In contrast with quality, Hillsborough County’s business climate factors were also rated on their respective importance to manufacturing (page 4). Comparison of importance ratings against perceived quality may be expected to help prioritize development efforts; e.g., a given business climate may have a low quality rating, but if it is not perceived as relatively important, development and improvement efforts could be directed elsewhere. The highest rated business climate factors in terms of importance (in descending order) include “Insurance costs” (high importance); “Electric power and utilities infrastructure” (medium-high importance); “Telecommunications infrastructure” (medium-high importance); “Local market for manufacturers’ products” (medium-high importance); and “Local tax structure competitiveness” (medium-high importance). The ve lowest rated business climate factors in terms of Importance (in order) include “Access to primary nancial markets for public offerings” (medium importance); “Access to angel and venture capital investment” (medium importance); “Need for new local degree programs” (medium importance); “Access to research technologies” (medium importance); and “Access to students for internships, co-ops and externships” (medium importance). The average importance rating for all business climate factors was 3.57. Overall response rates were again consistent with an average standard deviation of +/1.07, with the greatest variability of responses shown regarding “Access to angel and venture capital”.

PAGE 5

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey3 Av erage Rating1.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 32. Availability of arts and cultural activities 31. Availability of entertainment and sporting activities 30. Local market for your companys product 29. Access to supplier / vendors 28. Access to raw materials / components 27. Insurance costs 26. International trade (import / export) competitiveness 25. Access to research technology 24. Need for new local certificate / non-degree training programs 23. Need for new local degree programs 22. Access to students for internships, co-ops and externships 21. Labor / workforce wages 20. Availability of management professionals 19. Availability of skilled labor 18. Availability of unskilled labor 17. Access to primary financial markets for public offerings 16. Access to debt capital (lenders) 15. Access to angel and venture capital (equity) investment 14. City Government responsiveness 13. County Government responsiveness 12. Electric power infrastructure 11. Telecommunications infrastructure 10. Water infrastructure 9. Air Transportation infrastructure 8. Road Transportation infrastructure 7. Value of Useful Life depreciation schedule for tangible property 6. State taxation competitiveness 5. Local tax structure competitiveness 4. Overall competitiveness of Hillsboroughs business climate Responses from the 2003 Manufacturing SurveyOverall Quality of Business Climate Factors in Hillsborough County Figure 1. Business Climate Quality Rankings

PAGE 6

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey4 Av erage Rating1.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 32. Availability of arts and cultural activities 31. Availability of entertainment and sporting activities 30. Local market for your company's product 29. Access to supplier / vendors 28. Access to raw materials / components 27. Insurance costs 26. International trade (import / export) competitiveness 25. Access to research technology 24. Need for new local certificate / non-degree training programs 23. Need for new local degree programs 22. Access to students for internships, co-ops and externships 21. Labor / workforce wages 20. Availability of management professionals 19. Availability of skilled labor 18. Availability of unskilled labor 17. Access to primary financial markets for public offerings 16. Access to debt capital (lenders) 15. Access to angel and venture capital (equity) investment 14. City Government responsiveness 13. County Government responsiveness 12. Electric power infrastructure 11. Telecommunications infrastructure 10. Water infrastructure 9. Air Transportation infrastructure 8. Road Transportation infrastructure 7. Value of Useful Life depreciation schedule for tangible property 6. State taxation competitiveness 5. Local tax structure competitiveness 4. Overall competitiveness of Hillsborough's business climate Responses from the 2003 Manufacturing SurveyOverall Importance of Business Climate Factors in Hillsborough County Figure 2. Business Climate Importance RankingsQuality Versus Importance Figure 3 (following page) weighs quality against importance for each business climate factor. The business climate factors with the largest apparent disparities are observable in the upper left corner of the gure (relatively high importance, low quality). These are the factors that would most bene t from improvement activities and coordinated economic development programs, from the perspective of the survey respondents. Listed in order of decreasing disparity, they include: 1. Insurance costs (ratio of quality to importance: .56) 2. Local tax structure competitiveness (ratio of quality to importance: .67) 3. Road transportation infrastructure (ratio of quality to importance: .71) 4. Availability of skilled labor (ratio of quality to importance: .71) 5. State taxation competitiveness (ratio of quality to importance: .76)

PAGE 7

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey5 QualityVersus ImportanceHillsborough County Business Factors: 2003 Manufacturing Survey High Importance, Low Quality High Quality, Low Importance Quality2.02.53.03.54.04.5 Importance2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 4. Overall competitiveness 5. Tax structure 6. State taxation 7. Depreciation schedules 8. Road transportation 9. Air transportation 10. Water infrastructure 11. Telecommunications 12. Electric power infrastructure 13. County government responsiveness 14. City government responsiveness 15. Angel / venture capital 16. Debt capital 17. Primary financial markets 18. Unskilled labor 19. Skilled labor 20. Management professionals 21. Labor / workforce wages 22. Access to students 23. Local degree programs 24. Local certificates/ non-degree programs 25. Research technology 26. International trade 27. Insurance costs 28. Raw materials 29. Suppliers / vendors 30. Local markets 31. Entertainment / sports 32. Arts / cultureLow Importance, Low Quality High Importance, High Quality Figure 3. Business Climate Quality Versus Importance

PAGE 8

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey6 Quality versus Importance (Perceived Disparity)Ratio 27. Insurance costs 0.56 05. Tax structure0.67 08. Road Transportation0.71 19. Skilled labor 0.71 06. State taxation0.76 07. Depreciation schedule0.77 21. Labor / workforce wages 0.79 30. Local markets0.80 04. Overall competitiveness0.82 14. City Government responsiveness 0.84 13. County Government responsiveness 0.85 1 1. Telecommunications infrastructure 0.86 12. Electric power infrastructure 0.86 16. Debt capital (lenders) 0.86 22. Access to students0.86 10. Water infrastructure 0.87 29. Suppliers / vendors 0.87 24. Local certi cate / non-degree programs 0.88 17. Primary nancial markets0.89 26. International trade0.89 18. Unskilled labor 0.89 28. Raw materials / components 0.90 20. Management professionals 0.90 25. Research technology 0.91 15. Angel and venture capital0.94 23. Local degree programs 0.95 09. Air Transportation1.03 32. Arts and cultural activities 1.13 31. Entertainment and sporting activities 1.18T able 1, below, lists the actual ratio values of perceived quality versus importance based upon local manufacturers’ responses. These scores serve a descriptive purpose; particularly low ratios indicate a high discrepancy between high perceived importance relative to importance. However, only the ratios near the top of the table have particular signi cance to economic development; values near 1.0 merely indicate that perceived quality is near the perceived importance for that item.Ta ble 1. Quality Versus Importance Ratios

PAGE 9

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey7 Percent of Respondents Expressing Interest0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%16%18%20% Interest in receiving information regarding expansion assistance Interest in receiving information regarding other financial tools Interest in receiving information regarding industrial revenue bonds Interest in receiving information regarding workforce programs 18.67% 4.00% 5.33% 12.00%Interest in receiving economic development information2003 Hillsborough County Manufacturing Survey Percent of Respondents Expressing Interest0%5%10%15%20%25% Programs fo high school faculty/instructor internships Programs forcollege interns Programs for high school students 14.67% 24.00% 8.00%Interest in supporting internships and externships2003 Hillsborough County Manufacturing Survey Figure 4. Interest in Supporting Internships and Externships Figure 5. Interest in Economic Development InformationInterest in Students Survey participants were asked whether they would be interested in supporting internships, co-ops, or externships for students and faculty at different levels. As shown in Figure 4, almost a quarter of respondents expressed in interest in supporting college-level students (24.00%). Approximately one in six expressed interest in supporting high school students (14.67%), and 8.00 % expressed interest in supporting faculty externships to familiarize high school teachers with manufacturing career opportunities. A list of respondents expressing interest has been provided to the Hillsborough County Economic Development Department. Interest in Receiving Economic Development Information Participants were also asked regarding their interest in receiving additional information regarding economic development and workforce programs. The most interest was expressed regarding workforce programs 18.67%. Expansion assistance information generated the next most interest, with 12.00%. Interest in receiving nancing tools information generated a response of 5.33%, and industrial revenue bond information 4.00%. As with student internship / externship responses, a list of interested respondents was provided to the sponsor.

PAGE 10

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey8Open-End Responses Three survey participants provided responses to the open-ended question #35: “Do you have any additional comments about competitiveness of business climate in Hillsborough County?“ Response 3 was from a “hightech” designated company; their response was truncated due to database limitations, though they appeared to have more feedback that was not recorded. 1. ”Need vocational training programs.” 2. “We need to put sheet metal training back in to Tech Schools. We could triple our business if we could hire experienced or trained sheet metal fabricators.” 3. “There are a number of issues that I believe must be addressed by the local community if Hillsborough County is ever going to become an competitive (sic) area to be a manufacture or do business. [The rst item includes] the tax structure within the City of Tampa....” High Tech Manufacturers The database of respondents was broken into “high technology” and non-high tech companies based upon their standard industry classi cation (SIC) codes, primarily as compared against de nitions by the American Electronics Association (AEA) and the Florida High Tech Corridor Council (FHTC). A list of matching “high tech” Hillsborough County manufacturing industry codes is included as Appendix II. The Hillsborough County Economic Development Department expressed interest in learning whether technology-based manufacturers would express different opinion regarding the business climate as compared to nontechnology-oriented manufacturers. Of the 75 respondents, only 13 were identi ed as “high tech” in this fashion (17.3% of the respondents). Although this is too small of a sample for sophisticated statistical comparison, a side-by-side comparison of results can still be informative. Figures 1-3 are replicated as Figures 6-8, with the following tables and gures comparing “high tech” respondents versus non-high tech respondents. As before, combined business climate ratings are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7. Each business climate factor corresponds to one item on the survey instrument. The gure displays the average rating of all responses as a blue circle, with possible ratings from 1 to 5. The bar spanning each score represents the standard deviation of responses, indicating an overall consistency of responses. Overall, the responses and rankings provided by high tech respondents are consistent with other responding manufacturers (without the “high tech” designation), except as noted. Quality Ratings Based upon responses from high-tech manufacturers, the highest rated business climate factors in terms of quality (in descending order) include “Air transportation infrastructure” (above average quality); “Sports and entertainment” (above average quality); “Arts and culture activities” (slightly above average quality); “Electric power and utilities infrastructure” (slightly above average quality); “Telecommunications infrastructure” (slightly above average quality). High-tech manufactures rated the following business climate factors lowest in terms of quality: “Insurance costs” (slightly below average quality); “Local tax structure” (average quality); “City government responsiveness” (average quality); “Road transportation infrastructure” (average quality), and “Value of Useful Life depreciation schedule for property” (average quality)

PAGE 11

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey9Although the speci c order varies slightly between high-tech and non-high tech designated manufacturers, the top ve and bottom ve ranked categories are the same for both groups. The average quality rating for all business climate quality factors was 3.18 (all respondents), again indicating just slightly better than average quality of manufacturing business climate in Hillsborough County. Overall response rates were consistent with an average standard deviation of +/.95, with the greatest variability of responses shown regarding “Local market for your company’s product”. Overall, the responding high-tech Hillsborough County manufacturers paint a picture of the county as being competitively “on par” with their perceptions of other metropolitan manufacturing regions in the U.S. T able 2. High Tech Versus Non-High Tech Quality Rankings Business Climate Quality RatingsNon High-TechHigh-Tech RankMeanStDevRankMeanStDev 09. Air Transportation infrastructure 13.991.0613.971.08 31. Availability of entertainment and sporting activities 23.931.0823.911.10 32. Availability of arts and cultural activities 33.650.9033.630.92 12. Electric power infrastructure 43.600.9643.570.94 1 1. Telecommunications infrastructure 53.550.8053.540.81 29. Access to supplier / vendors 63.480.9463.420.92 16. Access to debt capital (lenders) 83.320.8973.320.88 28. Access to raw materials / components 73.351.0483.291.00 21. Labor / workforce wages 113.280.7993.280.81 30. Local market for your company’s product 93.311.27103.271.28 18. Availability of unskilled labor 103.301.03113.271.04 10. Water infrastructure 123.240.94123.250.92 20. Availability of management professionals 133.200.78133.200.79 26. International trade (import / export) competitiveness 143.190.83143.190.84 04. Overall competitiveness of Hillsborough’s business climate 163.140.82153.150.83 06. State taxation competitiveness 153.151.03163.141.03 24. Need for new local certi cate / non-degree training programs 173.010.95173.090.94 15. Access to angel and venture capital (equity) investment 183.000.90183.020.92 23. Need for new local degree programs 193.000.78193.020.80 22. Access to students for internships, co-ops and externships 212.950.96203.020.94 25. Access to research technology 203.000.91213.000.92 19. Availability of skilled labor 242.931.13222.991.11 13. County Government responsiveness 232.930.87232.940.88 17. Access to primary nancial markets for public offerings 222.940.84242.940.87 07. Value of Useful Life depreciation schedule for tangible property 262.851.02252.891.01 08. Road Transportation infrastructure 252.860.98262.870.99 14. City Government responsiveness 272.810.78272.850.75 05. Local tax structure competitiveness 282.780.89282.800.90 27. Insurance costs 292.471.20292.481.22

PAGE 12

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey10 Av erage Rating1.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 32. Availability of arts and cultural activities 31. Availability of entertainment and sporting activities 30. Local market for your company's product 29. Access to supplier / vendors 28. Access to raw materials / components 27. Insurance costs 26. International trade (import / export) competitiveness 25. Access to research technology 24. Need for new local certificate / non-degree training programs 23. Need for new local degree programs 22. Access to students for internships, co-ops and externships 21. Labor / workforce wages 20. Availability of management professionals 19. Availability of skilled labor 18. Availability of unskilled labor 17. Access to primary financial markets for public offerings 16. Access to debt capital (lenders) 15. Access to angel and venture capital (equity) investment 14. City Government responsiveness 13. County Government responsiveness 12. Electric power infrastructure 11. Telecommunications infrastructure 10. Water infrastructure 9. Air Transportation infrastructure 8. Road Transportation infrastructure 7. Value of Useful Life depreciation schedule for tangible property 6. State taxation competitiveness 5. Local tax structure competitiveness 4. Overall competitiveness of Hillsborough's business climate Responses from July, 2003 Manufacturing SurveyOverall Quality of Business Climate Factors in Hillsborough County Figure 6. High Tech Business Climate Quality RankingsImportance Ratings In contrast with quality, Hillsborough County’s business climate factors were also rated on their respective importance to high-technology manufacturing. As stated previously, comparison of importance ratings against perceived quality may be expected to help prioritize development efforts. The highest high-tech rated business climate factors in terms of importance (in descending order) include “Insurance costs” (high importance); “Electric power and utilities infrastructure” (medium-high importance); “Telecommunications infrastructure” (medium-high importance); “Local market for manufacturers’ products” (medium-high importance); and “Local tax structure competitiveness” (medium-high importance).

PAGE 13

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey11For responding high-tech manufacturers, the lowest rated business climate factors in terms of Importance include “Access to primary nancial markets for public offerings” (medium importance); “Need for new local degree programs” (medium importance); “Access to angel and venture capital investment” (medium importance); “Access to research technologies” (medium importance); “Access to students for internships, co-ops and externships” (medium importance). As with the quality ratings, the top and bottom ve business climate importance factors are the same for both high tech and non-high tech designated companies, although the order varies slightly for the bottom categories. The average importance rating for all business climate factors was 3.57 (non high-tech) to 3.56 (high-tech). Overall response rates were again consistent with an average standard deviation of +/1.07 (all respondents), with the greatest variability of responses again shown regarding, “Access to angel and venture capital”. T able 3. High Tech Versus Non-High Tech Importance Rankings Business Climate Importance RatingsNon High-TechHigh-Tech RankMeanStDevRankMeanStDev 27. Insurance costs 14.310.9914.291.00 12. Electric power infrastructure 24.190.8324.180.85 1 1. Telecommunications infrastructure 34.120.8434.110.86 30. Local market for your company’s product 44.111.0944.101.11 05. Local tax structure competitiveness 54.090.8954.060.90 06. State taxation competitiveness 64.060.9364.030.94 21. Labor / workforce wages 83.960.8873.970.88 19. Availability of skilled labor 73.991.0583.961.06 08. Road Transportation infrastructure 93.941.0393.931.04 04. Overall competitiveness of Hillsborough’s business climate 103.910.94103.910.93 29. Access to supplier / vendors 113.901.02113.851.02 09. Air Transportation infrastructure 123.821.06123.801.08 10. Water infrastructure 133.710.97133.690.97 07. Value of Useful Life depreciation schedule for tangible property 153.661.08143.631.09 28. Access to raw materials / components 143.671.20153.591.19 18. Availability of unskilled labor 163.471.15163.501.13 20. Availability of management professionals 183.441.00173.480.98 16. Access to debt capital (lenders) 193.401.22183.441.19 13. County Government responsiveness 173.441.04193.421.05 26. International trade (import / export) competitiveness 203.361.23203.381.25 14. City Government responsiveness 213.281.12213.281.08 31. Availability of entertainment and sporting activities 223.191.22223.191.25 24. Need for new local certi cate / non-degree training programs 233.171.20233.011.18 32. Availability of arts and cultural activities 243.041.12243.041.14 22. Access to students for internships, co-ops and externships 252.971.14252.971.16 25. Access to research technology 262.941.25262.941.23 15. Access to angel and venture capital (equity) investment 282.791.25272.851.26 23. Need for new local degree programs 272.801.12282.821.12 17. Access to primary nancial markets for public offerings 292.721.21292.691.17

PAGE 14

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey12 Av erage Rating1.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 32. Availability of arts and cultural activities 31. Availability of entertainment and sporting activities 30. Local market for your company's product 29. Access to supplier / vendors 28. Access to raw materials / components 27. Insurance costs 26. International trade (import / export) competitiveness 25. Access to research technology 24. Need for new local certificate / non-degree training programs 23. Need for new local degree programs 22. Access to students for internships, co-ops and externships 21. Labor / workforce wages 20. Availability of management professionals 19. Availability of skilled labor 18. Availability of unskilled labor 17. Access to primary financial markets for public offerings 16. Access to debt capital (lenders) 15. Access to angel and venture capital (equity) investment 14. City Government responsiveness 13. County Government responsiveness 12. Electric power infrastructure 11. Telecommunications infrastructure 10. Water infrastructure 9. Air Transportation infrastructure 8. Road Transportation infrastructure 7. Value of Useful Life depreciation schedule for tangible property 6. State taxation competitiveness 5. Local tax structure competitiveness 4. Overall competitiveness of Hillsborough's business climate Responses from July, 2003 Manufacturing SurveyOverall Importance of Business Climate Factors in Hillsborough County Figure 7. High Tech Business Climate Importance RankingsQuality Versus Importance (High Tech Respondents) Figure 8 (next page) maps high-tech manufacturers’ responses regarding quality versus importance for each business climate factor. For most factors, importance and quality appear to be consistent, with the most apparent disparities observable in the upper left corner of the gure (relatively high importance, low quality). Perception regarding these factors would most bene t from improvement activities and coordinated economic development programs, from the perspective of the survey respondents.

PAGE 15

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey13Listed in order of decreasing disparity, these business factors include “Insurance costs”, “Local tax structure competitiveness”, “Road transportation infrastructure”, “Availability of skilled labor”, and “State taxation competitiveness.” High Importance, Low Quality High Quality, Low Importance Low Importance, Low Quality High Importance, High QualityQualityVersus ImportanceHillsborough County Business Factors: 2003 Manufacturing Survey Quality2.02.53.03.54.04.5 Importance2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 4. Overall competitiveness 5. Tax structure 6. State taxation 7. Depreciation schedules 8. Road transportation 9. Air transportation 10. Water infrastructure 11. Telecommunications 12. Electric power infrastructure 13. County government responsiveness 14. City government responsiveness 15. Angel / venture capital 16. Debt capital 17. Primary financial markets 18. Unskilled labor 19. Skilled labor 20. Management professionals 21. Labor / workforce wages 22. Access to students 23. Local degree programs 24. Local certificates/ non-degree programs 25. Research technology 26. International trade 27. Insurance costs 28. Raw materials 29. Suppliers / vendors 30. Local markets 31. Entertainment / sports 32. Arts / culture Figure 8. High Tech Business Climate Quality Versus Importance

PAGE 16

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey14Ta ble 4. Quality Versus Importance RatiosActual quality versus importance perceived disparity ratios are listed as Table 4. Again, only the top listed items (with the lowest ratios) have particular signi cance to economic development, indicating that high tech manufacturers perceive a disparity in the quality of these subjects versus their relative importance. Ratios near 1.0 indicate that high-tech respondents perceive quality to be commensurate with importance. Statistical Comparison of non-High Tech Manufacturers versus High Tech Manufacturers A multiple correlation test was performed on the survey responses. The responses do not t a normal distribution, and there was no signi cant connection between a company’s designation of “high technology” and its responses regarding business climate (P>.05). Quality versus Importance (Perceived Disparity) Ratio 27. Insurance costs 0.58 05. Tax structure0.69 08. Road Transportation0.73 19. Skilled labor 0.75 06. State taxation0.78 07. Depreciation schedule0.80 30. Local markets0.80 04. Overall competitiveness0.81 21. Labor / workforce wages 0.83 12. Electric power infrastructure 0.86 13. County Government responsiveness 0.86 1 1. Telecommunications infrastructure 0.86 14. City Government responsiveness 0.87 10. Water infrastructure 0.88 29. Suppliers / vendors 0.89 28. Raw materials / components 0.92 20. Management professionals 0.92 18. Unskilled labor 0.93 26. International trade0.94 16. Debt capital (lenders) 0.96 24. Local certi cate / non-degree programs 1.00 22. Access to students1.02 25. Research technology 1.02 09. Air Transportation1.05 15. Angel and venture capital1.06 23. Local degree programs 1.07 17. Primary nancial markets1.09 32. Arts and cultural activities 1.19 31. Entertainment and sporting activities 1.23

PAGE 17

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey15Statistical Comparison of Business Climate Quality Factors A number of statistical tests were run on the survey responses to identify correlations between business climate factors, or between business climate factors and characteristics of the responding companies. The ndings for most of these are discussed separately, but the most important ndings related to “what factors most explain the overall business climate quality of Hillsborough County as perceived by all responding manufacturers?” To determine this, a linear regression test was run on the business climate factor ratings (Pearson correlation similarity matrix, with 1-tailed signi cance test using interval data). The results from this test take the form of a matrix; the similarity between any two business climate factors can be found by matching the appropriate row and column. Matrix values range from -1.0 (maximum dissimilarity) to +1.0 (maximum similarity). The complete results matrices are included as Appendix I. The correlation matrix indicates that overall business climate quality is best explained by the following business climate factors (in order); actual correlation values and signi cance scores are listed in Figure 9. Question 20, Availability of management professionals (extremely signi cant) Question 27, Insurance costs (extremely signi cant), Question 19, Availability of skilled labor (extremely signi cant), Question 26, International trade (import / export) competitiveness (signi cant) Question 13, County government responsiveness (signi cant), Question 5, Local tax structure competitiveness (signi cant) Similarity-1.0-0.50.00.51.0 05. Local tax structure competitiveness 13. County Government responsiveness 26. International trade (import / export) competitiveness 19. Availability of skilled labor 27. Insurance costs 20. Availability of management professionals 0.462 0.396 0.375 0.332 0.295 0.294Business Climate Factors Supporting Overall Business Climate Signi cance 0.002 0.006 0.009 0.020 0.034 0.035Figure 9. Most In uential Business Climate FactorsThe analysts are con dent in stating that availability of management professionals, insurance costs, and availability of skilled labor are perceived by local manufacturers as important contributors to the competitiveness of Hillsborough County’s business climate.

PAGE 18

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey16Statistical Comparison of Other Business Climate Factors The correlation matrices also indicated signi cant correlations among other business climate factors. The factors most signi cantly correlated have been listed here. The majority of these correlations also have apparent semantic similarities in terms of business climate factors. “IMPORTANCE” Question 11 with 12 (Telecommunications and Power infrastructures) Question 13 with 14 (City government responsiveness and County government responsiveness) Question 15 with 16 (Access to angel / venture capital, and Access to debt capital) Question 23 with 24 (Need for new local degree programs, and Need for new non-degree programs) Question 28 with 29 (Access to raw materials/ components, and Access to suppliers and vendors) “QUALITY” Question 13 with 14 (City government responsiveness and County government responsiveness) “QUALITY / IMPORTANCE” (discrepancy ratio) Question 5, 6 (Local tax structure competitiveness, and State tax structure competitiveness) Question 13, 14 (City government responsiveness and County government responsiveness) Question 15, 17 (Access to angel / venture capital, and Access to public markets) Question 17, 25 (Access to public markets, access to research technology) Question 23 with 24 (Need for new local degree programs, and Need for new non-degree programs) Question 27, 29 (Insurance costs, and Access to suppliers and vendors) Other Statistical Findings The statistics suggest that company interest in supporting student internships, externships and co-op programs is signi cantly associated with company size; speci cally, medium-sized companies (between 10 and 100 employees) were most likely to express interest (chi-squared test for independence, P=.0032). Although a battery of different statistical tests were run against business climate factors, company size, industry category, and high-tech / low-tech designation of responding companies, no other signi cant correlations were identi ed.

PAGE 19

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey17Summary Observations Overall, the survey responses indicate that the participating manufacturers viewed Hillsborough County as competitive, at least comparable to other U.S. business climates overall. The quality of the overall business climate was rated as “better than average,” with a 3.9 rating out of a possible 5. There are speci c areas where the County excels, such as utilities, air transportation, sports and entertainment, arts and culture. The quality of these business climate factors are rated as better than average by both high-tech and non high-tech designated respondents. This positive overall rating is due to the fact that the areas of greatest de ciency were still given roughly an “average” rating by respondents. These elements of Hillsborough County’s business climate include insurance, road infrastructure, taxation structures, and nancing methods. Insurance costs stand out as a topic that respondents indicated has the greatest disparity between its current quality and its importance to manufacturing. Although this report has paid particular attention to the most signi cant de ciencies, it is recommended that further assistance and economic development be committed to all of the business climate factors, in order to establish a higher overall standard for the County. “Average” may be a commendable rating for the areas of greatest de ciency, but we expect that community leaders would prefer the business climate to be superior in all categories. Ongoing, periodic research will help set that goal, and monitor progress by exploring in more explicit detail how the most signi cant business climate issues affect manufacturers. This study was essentially an opinion research project, a report of the perceptions that Hillsborough County manufacturers have regarding their business climate. While it is acknowledged that perceptions about business climate issues may or may not be accurate to reality, perceptions in uence reality as manufacturing executives base their decisions to expand, invest, hire, or relocate upon them. Further, these perceptions can be communicated to businesses outside of Hillsborough County, which can further in uence opportunities for sales and investment. Although perceptions may not always re ect reality, they can in uence it and become self-ful lling. By extension, programs addressing perception issues can be effective tools in improving actual business climates. It is important to augment outreach and economic development programs with dissemination and education efforts. As manufacturing leaders become more aware of resources and programs within their community, perceptions of Hillsborough County’s overall business climate can be expected to improve. Based upon the ndings, improvements and dissemination efforts regarding the availability of management professionals, insurance costs, and the availability of skilled labor will be most effective in improving both the local perceptions and the actual business climate of Hillsborough County’s manufacturing community. Given the closely linked responses between “high-tech” and non high-tech manufacturers, such efforts should bene t both manufacturing sectors equally.

PAGE 20

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey18 Appendix I. Research Instruments July 11, 2003 Contact_First_Cap Contact_Last_Cap NAME Location_Address Location_City, FL Location_ZIP RE: Hillsborough County Competitiveness Survey To Contact1: On behalf of the Hillsborough County s Economic Development Department, I am requesting your feedback regarding issues of importance to our manufacturing and business environment. Your response will be used to guide our strategic planning efforts. Please complete the attached survey, and return it by July 31, 2003 by mail or fax to our of ces. If you prefer, you can complete the survey online at http://innovationInsight.com/hc Either way, the survey only takes about 15 minutes to complete, and I think you will nd that the survey addresses salient business issues. Your responses will be considered con dential. Y our company is a very important part of Hillsborough County s economy and we consider your opinion valuable. We look forward to receiving your response! Sincerely, Bruce C. Register Corporate Business Development Manager Hillsborough County Economic Development Department

PAGE 21

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey19 1. Please provide your name (required): 2. Please provide your company's name (required): 3. Please indicate your company's primary product: From the perspective of your company, please rate Hillsborough County for the following factors. For overall quality circle a number where 1="low" and 5="high." For overall importance circle a number where 1="low" and 5="high." A category may have low quality and high importance, or vice versa. CategoryOverall QualityOverall Importance 4. Overall competitiveness of Hillsborough's business climate1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 5. Local tax structure competitiveness1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 6. State taxation competitiveness1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 7. Value of Useful Life depreciation schedule for tangible property1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 8. Road Transportation infrastructure1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 9. Air Transportation infrastructure1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 10. Water infrastructure1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 11. Telecommunications infrastructure1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 12. Electric power infrastructure1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 13. County government responsiveness1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 14. City government responsiveness1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 15. Access to angel and venture capital (equity) investment1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 16. Access to debt capital (lenders)1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 17. Access to primary financial markets for public offerings1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 18. Availability of unskilled labor1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 19. Availability of skilled labor1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 20. Availability of management professionals1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 21. Labor/ workforce wages1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 22. Access to students for internships, co-ops and externships1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 23. Need for new local degree programs1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 24. Need for new local certificate / non-degree training programs1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 25. Access to research technology1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 26. International trade (import / export) competitiveness1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 27. Insurance costs1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 28. Access to raw materials / components1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 29. Access to supplier / vendors 1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 30. Local market for your company's product1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 31. Availability of entertainment and sporting activities1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 32. Availability of arts and cultural activities1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5 33. Is your company interested in workforce programs for internships or externships? Please check any that apply: High School studentsCollege internsHigh School faculty/instructor internships 34. Is your company interested in information on any of the following? Please check all that apply: Workforce ProgramsIndustrial Revenue Bonds Other financial toolsExpansion assistance 35. Do you have any additional comments about competitiveness of business climate in Hillsborough County? Please note them by attaching a separate page. The Hillsborough County Department of Economic Development is conducting a survey of manufacturing firms. Your response will help us better target our services and programs to meet your needs and increase the competitiveness of Hillsborough County as a pro-manufacturing environment. The survey takes less than 15 minutes to complete; please return the completed survey by mail or fax by July 31 to: Bruce Register Hillsborough County Economic Development 601 E. Kennedy Blvd, PO Box 1110 Tampa, FL 33601 Fax: (813) 276-2638 Or complete online at: http://innovationInsight.com/hc Your responses will be held strictly confidential will not be distributed or published unless in aggregated data, and is primarily for the use of the Economic Development Department. Your feedback is very important to us!

PAGE 22

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey20 Appendix II. Identi ed High Tech Research Industry Codes The following industry codes were selected to represent “high tech”: manufacturers of technology and research based products. The categories that were identi ed among the list of respondents is in the rst table; unrepresented categories are contained in the second.High tech industry codes identi ed among survey respondents: 3569-07 Automation Systems & Equipment-Mfrs 3579-08 Copying Machines & Supplies-Mfrs 3612-98 Power Distr/Specialty Transformer (Mfrs) 3625-05 Industrial Instrumentation (Mfrs) 3663-02 Communication Equipment-Manufacturers 3672-01 Printed & Etched Circuits-Mfrs 3679-01 Electronic Equipment & Supplies-Mfrs 3691-01 Storage-Batteries (Manufacturers) 3695-98 Magnetic/Optical Recording Media (Mfrs) 3699-02 Electric Equipment-Manufacturers 3841-04 Physicians & Surgeons Equip & Supls-Mfrs Selected high tech industry codes not identi ed among survey respondents: 2834 3559 3571 3577 3661 3669 3674 3728 3812 3821 3823 3825 3826 3827 3829 3842 3843 3844 3845 3851 3861 3999 4813 4899 5047 5048 5049 5063 5065 5082 5085 5122 5734 7336 7371 7372 7373 7374 7375 7378 7379 7629 8399 8711 8731 8734 8742 8748 8999

PAGE 23

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey21 Appendix III. Web Survey HillsboroughCountyManufacturingSurvey http://innovationinsight.com/hc/ 1of1 8/13/037:59PM Hillsborough County Manufacturing Survey TheHillsboroughCountyDepartmentofEconomicDevelopmentisconductingasurveyofmanufacturingfirms.Yourresponsewillhelpusbettertargeto urservicesandprogramstomeetyourneedsandincreasethe competitivenessofHillsboroughCountyasapro-manufacturingenvironment.Thesurveytakeslessthan15minutestocomplete;pleasecompletethis surveybyJuly31. Yourresponseswillbeheld strictlyconfidential willnotbedistributedorpublishedunlessinaggregateddata,andisprimarilyfortheuseoftheHillsboroughCountyEconomicDevelopmentDepartm ent.1.Pleaseprovideyourname(required): 2.Pleaseprovideyourcompany'sname(required): 3.Pleaseindicateyourcompany'sprimaryproduct: Fromtheperspectiveofyourcompany,pleaserateHillsboroughCountyforthefollowingfactors.Acategorymayhavelowqualityandhighimportance, orviceversa. Category OverallQualityOverallImportance 4.OverallcompetitivenessofHillsborough'sbusinessclimate PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 5.Localtaxstructurecompetitiveness PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 6.Statetaxationcompetitiveness PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 7.ValueofUsefulLifedepreciationschedulefortangibleproperty PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 8.RoadTransportationinfrastructure PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 9.AirTransportationinfrastructure PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 10.Waterinfrastructure PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 11.Telecommunicationsinfrastructure PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 12.Electricpowerinfrastructure PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 13.CountyGovernmentresponsiveness PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 14.CityGovernmentresponsiveness PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 15.Accesstoangelandventurecapital(equity)investment PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 16.Accesstodebtcapital(lenders) PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 17.Accesstoprimaryfinancialmarketsforpublicofferings PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 18.Availabilityofunskilledlabor PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 19.Availabilityofskilledlabor PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 20.Availabilityofmanagementprofessionals PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 21.Labor/workforcewages PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 22.Accesstostudentsforinternships,co-opsandexternships PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 23.Needfornewlocaldegreeprograms PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 24.Needfornewlocalcertificate/non-degreetrainingprograms PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 25.Accesstoresearchtechnology PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 26.Internationaltrade(import/export)competitiveness PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 27.Insurancecosts PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 28.Accesstorawmaterials/components PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 29.Accesstosupplier/vendors PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 30.Localmarketforyourcompany'sproduct PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 31.Availabilityofentertainmentandsportingactivities PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 32.Availabilityofartsandculturalactivities PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne PleaseSelectOne 33.Isyourcompanyinterestedinworkforceprogramsforinternshipsorexternships?Pleasecheckanythatapply: HighSchoolstudents Collegeinterns HighSchoolfaculty/instructorinternships 34.Isyourcompanyinterestedininformationonanyofthefollowing?Pleasecheckallthatapply: WorkforceProgramsIndustrialRevenueBondsOtherfinancialtoolsExpansionassistance WorkforcePrograms IndustrialRevenueBonds Otherfinancialtools Expansionassistance 35.DoyouhaveanyadditionalcommentsaboutcompetitivenessofbusinessclimateinHillsboroughCounty? Pleasereviewtomakecertainthatyouhaveansweredallquestions;somebrowsersdon'tretainformentriesifyouhavetoreturn!Thankyouforyourpar ticipation;yourhelpiscriticaltoourefforts! SubmitSurveyNow Reset

PAGE 24

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey22 Appendix IV. Business Climate Quality Factors: Correlation Matrix The following matrix contains the results of a linear regression test, including the Pearson correlation similarity matrix and the 1-tailed pairwise signi cance matrix. Similarity between any two factors can be found by nding the intersection of a row and a column. Row and column labels refer to question numbers on the survey questionnaire, each regarding quality only. Note, every element of the matrix diagonal (where each factor intersects with itself) will have a +1.0 similarity. Q4Q5Q6Q7Q8Q9Q10Q11Q12Q13Q14Q15Q16Q17Q18 Q4 1.0000.2940.1600.177-0.0050.0140.043-0.1130.0090.2950.2400.1500.126-0.1060.266 Q5 0.2941.0000.6210.422-0.0120.0410.1370.0960.1320.2780.301-0.060-0.058-0.1520.296 Q6 0.1600.6211.0000.3670.2560.1370.1090.2830.1760.1750.133-0.267-0.098-0.1420.230 Q7 0.1770.4220.3671.0000.0830.0030.213-0.0080.1350.1480.1510.2190.3280.0940.042 Q8 -0.005-0.0120.2560.0831.000-0.1130.0030.1810.0420.159-0.1160.018-0.0120.1230.057 Q9 0.0140.0410.1370.003-0.1131.0000.4960.317-0.0020.2540.201-0.1900.0910.0100.343 Q10 0.0430.1370.1090.2130.0030.4961.0000.6800.3640.2320.3200.1190.3430.171-0.014 Q11 -0.1130.0960.283-0.0080.1810.3170.6801.0000.422-0.0240.020-0.0120.1770.174-0.082 Q12 0.0090.1320.1760.1350.042-0.0020.3640.4221.0000.1420.3300.2220.4720.158-0.035 Q13 0.2950.2780.1750.1480.1590.2540.232-0.0240.1421.0000.7450.1490.1140.0230.298 Q14 0.2400.3010.1330.151-0.1160.2010.3200.0200.3300.7451.0000.0660.107-0.0190.025 Q15 0.150-0.060-0.2670.2190.018-0.1900.119-0.0120.2220.1490.0661.0000.6760.557-0.025 Q16 0.126-0.058-0.0980.328-0.0120.0910.3430.1770.4720.1140.1070.6761.0000.607-0.002 Q17 -0.106-0.152-0.1420.0940.1230.0100.1710.1740.1580.023-0.0190.5570.6071.000-0.375 Q18 0.2660.2960.2300.0420.0570.343-0.014-0.082-0.0350.2980.025-0.025-0.002-0.3751.000 Q19 0.3750.2750.3030.4050.190-0.066-0.047-0.0330.3300.3570.2680.086-0.009-0.2640.052 Q20 0.4620.1650.2560.1270.283-0.2040.1260.1230.3870.2760.2190.2710.1320.235-0.170 Q21 -0.131-0.026-0.0440.119-0.0300.2340.140-0.1510.1100.1900.0480.0340.175-0.2520.283 Q22 0.0830.204-0.1500.074-0.1530.1860.229-0.013-0.1640.4110.3040.1930.1390.0820.413 Q23 0.1340.0740.1870.0360.2520.1690.140-0.0400.0000.4050.226-0.2070.000-0.0460.089 Q24 -0.1490.1510.4750.1110.2270.1080.0570.0220.2910.3300.203-0.270-0.073-0.2770.150 Q25 0.259-0.241-0.4070.141-0.0850.0690.275-0.0210.2330.1650.1130.6510.6790.503-0.222 Q26 0.332-0.114-0.1700.4330.1440.1490.139-0.1520.1370.4010.2570.4040.372-0.0030.311 Q27 0.3960.1720.1430.2720.081-0.082-0.240-0.307-0.1810.090-0.091-0.130-0.142-0.3580.283 Q28 0.266-0.013-0.0130.046-0.1600.3390.1780.1040.1860.230-0.0310.2160.4930.2180.413 Q29 0.237-0.152-0.2450.041-0.0480.0330.2670.1880.4730.160-0.0420.5420.6730.4080.021 Q30 0.044-0.279-0.167-0.144-0.1190.1520.0440.147-0.068-0.046-0.2050.3430.2840.329-0.007 Q31 0.1280.151-0.0210.1430.0320.3470.3360.3780.3580.2580.2830.0590.2420.127-0.008 Q32 0.004-0.079-0.0710.2360.0390.3710.1650.1220.1460.068-0.0170.1080.2210.2020.150Pearson’s Correlation Similarity Matrix

PAGE 25

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey23 Q19Q20Q21Q22Q23Q24Q25Q26Q27Q28Q29Q30Q31Q32 0.3750.462-0.1310.0830.134-0.1490.2590.3320.3960.2660.2370.0440.1280.004 0.2750.165-0.0260.2040.0740.151-0.241-0.1140.172-0.013-0.152-0.2790.151-0.079 0.3030.256-0.044-0.1500.1870.475-0.407-0.1700.143-0.013-0.245-0.167-0.021-0.071 0.4050.1270.1190.0740.0360.1110.1410.4330.2720.0460.041-0.1440.1430.236 0.1900.283-0.030-0.1530.2520.227-0.0850.1440.081-0.160-0.048-0.1190.0320.039 -0.066-0.2040.2340.1860.1690.1080.0690.149-0.0820.3390.0330.1520.3470.371 -0.0470.1260.1400.2290.1400.0570.2750.139-0.2400.1780.2670.0440.3360.165 -0.0330.123-0.151-0.013-0.0400.022-0.021-0.152-0.3070.1040.1880.1470.3780.122 0.3300.3870.110-0.1640.0000.2910.2330.137-0.1810.1860.473-0.0680.3580.146 0.3570.2760.1900.4110.4050.3300.1650.4010.0900.2300.160-0.0460.2580.068 0.2680.2190.0480.3040.2260.2030.1130.257-0.091-0.031-0.042-0.2050.283-0.017 0.0860.2710.0340.193-0.207-0.2700.6510.404-0.1300.2160.5420.3430.0590.108 -0.0090.1320.1750.1390.000-0.0730.6790.372-0.1420.4930.6730.2840.2420.221 -0.2640.235-0.2520.082-0.046-0.2770.503-0.003-0.3580.2180.4080.3290.1270.202 0.052-0.1700.2830.4130.0890.150-0.2220.3110.2830.4130.021-0.007-0.0080.150 1.0000.5060.092-0.1510.0840.2820.0840.3030.2490.0130.144-0.0570.1830.016 0.5061.000-0.108-0.0670.1740.1600.2930.184-0.0010.1030.3450.0380.044-0.015 0.092-0.1081.0000.1020.2540.3330.0590.2510.0830.0430.124-0.115-0.1730.250 -0.151-0.0670.1021.0000.312-0.1900.1250.188-0.0600.319-0.008-0.0780.0850.079 0.0840.1740.2540.3121.0000.478-0.0360.0000.1770.2990.084-0.0530.0740.000 0.2820.1600.333-0.1900.4781.000-0.2760.0420.2750.1040.029-0.083-0.072-0.091 0.0840.2930.0590.125-0.036-0.2761.0000.340-0.1400.2690.5500.2160.3540.258 0.3030.1840.2510.1880.0000.0420.3401.0000.1730.2660.334-0.0230.0420.231 0.249-0.0010.083-0.0600.1770.275-0.1400.1731.0000.206-0.024-0.101-0.142-0.204 0.0130.1030.0430.3190.2990.1040.2690.2660.2061.0000.6790.4340.2800.165 0.1440.3450.124-0.0080.0840.0290.5500.334-0.0240.6791.0000.5110.2520.163 -0.0570.038-0.115-0.078-0.053-0.0830.216-0.023-0.1010.4340.5111.000-0.0130.015 0.1830.044-0.1730.0850.074-0.0720.3540.042-0.1420.2800.252-0.0131.0000.565 0.016-0.0150.2500.0790.000-0.0910.2580.231-0.2040.1650.1630.0150.5651.000 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25 Q26 Q27 Q28 Q29 Q30 Q31 Q32Pearson’s Correlation Similarity Matrix, Continued Appendix IV. Business Climate Quality Factors, Continued

PAGE 26

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey24 Appendix IV. Business Climate Quality Factors, Continued 1-Tailed Signi cance Matrix Q4Q5Q6Q7Q8Q9Q10Q11Q12Q13Q14Q15Q16Q17Q18 Q4 0.0350.1650.1410.4870.4660.3960.2460.4780.0340.0710.1800.2210.2600.051 Q5 0.035.0.0000.0040.4720.4020.2020.2800.2110.0430.0320.3580.3620.1770.034 Q6 0.1650.000.0.0110.0580.2040.2540.0400.1420.1430.2100.0500.2760.1940.079 Q7 0.1410.0040.011.0.3080.4930.0970.4810.2060.1840.1790.0900.0210.2850.400 Q8 0.4870.4720.0580.308.0.2470.4930.1360.3990.1670.2410.4560.4700.2270.365 Q9 0.4660.4020.2040.4930.247.0.0010.0250.4960.0590.1100.1240.2910.4770.016 Q10 0.3960.2020.2540.0970.4930.001.0.0000.0110.0770.0240.2360.0160.1490.467 Q11 0.2460.2800.0400.4810.1360.0250.000.0.0040.4420.4510.4700.1400.1450.310 Q12 0.4780.2110.1420.2060.3990.4960.0110.004.0.1940.0200.0870.0010.1690.416 Q13 0.0340.0430.1430.1840.1670.0590.0770.4420.194.0.0000.1820.2440.4450.033 Q14 0.0710.0320.2100.1790.2410.1100.0240.4510.0200.000.0.3460.2580.4540.440 Q15 0.1800.3580.0500.0900.4560.1240.2360.4700.0870.1820.346.0.0000.0000.440 Q16 0.2210.3620.2760.0210.4700.2910.0160.1400.0010.2440.2580.000.0.0000.495 Q17 0.2600.1770.1940.2850.2270.4770.1490.1450.1690.4450.4540.0000.000.0.009 Q18 0.0510.0340.0790.4000.3650.0160.4670.3100.4160.0330.4400.4400.4950.009. Q19 0.0090.0450.0300.0050.1230.3460.3870.4210.0200.0130.0500.3020.4780.0520.376 Q20 0.0020.1580.0580.2200.0410.1070.2220.2270.0070.0450.0900.0480.2120.0750.150 Q21 0.2130.4370.3950.2350.4290.0750.1980.1790.2520.1230.3860.4190.1430.0610.040 Q22 0.3080.1070.1820.3270.1760.1280.0810.4690.1600.0050.0300.1200.2000.3100.004 Q23 0.2070.3270.1270.4130.0610.1510.1970.4040.5000.0050.0830.1030.5000.3910.294 Q24 0.1820.1790.0010.2510.0820.2560.3650.4470.0360.0200.1070.0480.3300.0440.181 Q25 0.0550.0690.0050.1960.3030.3380.0450.4490.0770.1570.2460.0000.0000.0010.088 Q26 0.0200.2450.1510.0030.1900.1820.1990.1770.2020.0060.0570.0050.0100.4940.027 Q27 0.0060.1470.1930.0470.3110.3090.0710.0280.1350.2930.2900.2150.1950.0130.041 Q28 0.0510.4690.4680.3910.1650.0170.1390.2650.1280.0790.4270.0930.0010.0910.004 Q29 0.0730.1780.0660.4010.3850.4220.0500.1260.0010.1660.3990.0000.0000.0050.450 Q30 0.3960.0430.1540.1910.2350.1770.3950.1860.3390.3900.1050.0160.0400.0200.482 Q31 0.2190.1790.4490.1930.4230.0150.0180.0090.0130.0560.0400.3610.0690.2200.480 Q32 0.4900.3160.3330.0740.4060.0100.1580.2310.1880.3410.4600.2560.0880.1080.181

PAGE 27

Hillsborough 2003 County Manufacturer’s Survey25 Appendix IV. Business Climate Quality Factors, Continued Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25 Q26 Q27 Q28 Q29 Q30 Q31 Q321-Tailed Signi cance Matrix, Continued Q19 0.009 Q20 0.002 Q21 0.213 Q22 0.308 Q23 0.207 Q24 0.182 Q25 0.055 Q26 0.020 Q27 0.006 Q28 0.051 Q29 0.073 Q30 0.396 Q31 0.219 Q32 0.490 0.0450.1580.4370.1070.3270.1790.0690.2450.1470.4690.1780.0430.1790.316 0.0300.0580.3950.1820.1270.0010.0050.1510.1930.4680.0660.1540.4490.333 0.0050.2200.2350.3270.4130.2510.1960.0030.0470.3910.4010.1910.1930.074 0.1230.0410.4290.1760.0610.0820.3030.1900.3110.1650.3850.2350.4230.406 0.3460.1070.0750.1280.1510.2560.3380.1820.3090.0170.4220.1770.0150.010 0.3870.2220.1980.0810.1970.3650.0450.1990.0710.1390.0500.3950.0180.158 0.4210.2270.1790.4690.4040.4470.4490.1770.0280.2650.1260.1860.0090.231 0.0200.0070.2520.1600.5000.0360.0770.2020.1350.1280.0010.3390.0130.188 0.0130.0450.1230.0050.0050.0200.1570.0060.2930.0790.1660.3900.0560.341 0.0500.0900.3860.0300.0830.1070.2460.0570.2900.4270.3990.1050.0400.460 0.3020.0480.4190.1200.1030.0480.0000.0050.2150.0930.0000.0160.3610.256 0.4780.2120.1430.2000.5000.3300.0000.0100.1950.0010.0000.0400.0690.088 0.0520.0750.0610.3100.3910.0440.0010.4940.0130.0910.0050.0200.2200.108 0.3760.1500.0400.0040.2940.1810.0880.0270.0410.0040.4500.4820.4800.181 0.0010.2900.1790.3070.0410.3050.0300.0640.4680.1900.3640.1320.461 0.001.0.2570.3430.1440.1650.0350.1310.4980.2650.0160.4100.3940.465 0.2900.257.0.2690.0590.0190.3620.0620.3070.3980.2260.2430.1460.062 0.1790.3430.269.0.0270.1230.2240.1260.3570.0240.4810.3190.3040.316 0.3070.1440.0590.027.0.0010.4150.5000.1400.0320.3050.3750.3280.500 0.0410.1650.0190.1230.001.0.0440.3990.0450.2650.4310.3090.3300.291 0.3050.0350.3620.2240.4150.044.0.0170.1980.0490.0000.0940.0140.057 0.0300.1310.0620.1260.5000.3990.017.0.1460.0510.0190.4440.3990.079 0.0640.4980.3070.3570.1400.0450.1980.146.0.1040.4430.2700.1930.106 0.4680.2650.3980.0240.0320.2650.0490.0510.104.0.0000.0030.0420.158 0.1900.0160.2260.4810.3050.4310.0000.0190.4430.000.0.0000.0610.160 0.3640.4100.2430.3190.3750.3090.0940.4440.2700.0030.000.0.4700.463 0.1320.3940.1460.3040.3280.3300.0140.3990.1930.0420.0610.470.0.000 0.4610.4650.0620.3160.5000.2910.0570.0790.1060.1580.1600.4630.000.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200265Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 002027904
005 20090928180635.0
006 m d
007 cr cn|||||||||
008 090909s2003 flua ss 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 7 ind2 024
subfield code a C63-00046
035
(OCoLC)436171294
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
049
FHMM
090
HD9727.F6 (ONLINE)
0 245
Hillsborough County 2003 manufacturing survey
h [electronic resource] /
an analysis performed by Center for Economic Development Research, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida.
260
Tampa, Fla. :
b Center for Economic Development Research,
2003.
300
1 online resource (25 p.) :
ill.
500
Title from PDF of cover (viewed Sept. 9, 2009).
"August 2003."
650
Manufacturing industries
z Florida
Hillsborough County.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Economic Development Research.
1 8 773
t Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR) Collection
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c63.46