SAVANNAH LOGISTICS TECHNOLOGY

& INNOVATION CORRIDOR

Insights to Developing an LTIC and SLTIC Approach
Center for Business Analytics and Economic Research
Georgia Southern University
 Logistics Technology and Innovation Corridor:
Insights to Developing an LTIC and SLTIC Approach

by the
Center for Business Analytics and Economic Research
Business Innovation Group
Parker College of Business
Georgia Southern University

Prepared for
Savannah Economic Development Administration
&
Savannah Logistics Technology Corridor Taskforce

Authors
Dr. Dominique Halaby
Dr. Marc Scott
Benjamin McKay
Suzanne Hallman
Phil Boyum

Special Thanks to
Jennifer Bonnet, Dr. Tracey Linderholm, Dr. Brenda Blackwell, Kristin Boylston, Carol Waller
and Dr. Christopher Curtis for added contributions to the report.

The Center for Business Analytics and Economic Research (CBAER) of the Business
Innovation Group (BIG) in the Parker College of Business at Georgia Southern University was
engaged to conduct a study on the feasibility and value proposition of a Logistics Technology
and Innovation Center (LTIC), a support center and partner for the proposed Savannah
Logistics Technology and Innovation Corridor (SLTIC) initiative, in Savannah, Georgia. The
study was conducted at the request of the Savannah Logistics Technology Corridor
Taskforce, in partnership with the Savannah Economic Development Authority (SEDA).
 3

Table of Contents
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................................................................................................4
Introduction and Comparative Analysis................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Innovation Districts .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
History ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8
Moving Forward .................................................................................................................................................................................................................9
Approach ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Comparable Districts ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Educational Institution Involvement ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14
Talent Development ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Leadership, Collaboration and Community ..........................................................................................................................................................17
Facilitating Access to Capital..................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Economic Overview (U.S., GA, & Study Area) ................................................................................................................................................................. 23
Occupation ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 32
Regional Education ..................................................................................................................................................................................................38
Logistics Technology and Innovation: Expert Perspectives .......................................................................................................................43
Current and Future Logistics Technologies .................................................................................................................................................... 47
Opportunities, Facilitators and Barriers in Logistics Technology ............................................................................................................. 50
Partnering Organization Types for Logistics Technology ............................................................................................................................ 55
Corporate Venturing in Logistics Technology .................................................................................................................................................. 58
Role of Educational Institutions in Logistics Technology Development ................................................................................................60
Emerging Themes .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 68
Critical Mass Rating.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 71
Logistics Technology and Innovation Center: A Value Proposition ...................................................................................................................... 83
Research and Outreach Capabilities .................................................................................................................................................................83
Educational Programming Capabilities .............................................................................................................................................................85
LTIC Agenda and Approach ................................................................................................................................................................................ 86
Summary and Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................................ 87
Appendix A: Logistics Developments & Advancements ............................................................................................................................................ 89
Appendix B: NAICS Tables Logistics & Transportation.............................................................................................................................................. 98
Appendix C: Stakeholder & Expert Interview Guide .................................................................................................................................................. 101
Appendix D: Interview Participants ....................................................................................................................................................................................107
Appendix E: Education Inventory ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 109
Appendix F: Georgia Southern Faculty Expertise.......................................................................................................................................................... 111
Appendix G: Current Georgia Southern Research....................................................................................................................................................... 112
References ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 113
 4

Executive Summary
The logistics industry is widely comprised of companies that are rigid and resistant to change;
however, a new generation of startups in logistics is securing sizable investment capital to
help “solve some of the industry’s oldest issues and address entirely new and rapidly growing
market needs” (Hausman, Woefl, Stofells & Fleck, 2020). To assist the Savannah Economic
Development Authority and the Savannah Logistics Technology Corridor Task Force assess
whether the region has the potential to capitalize on this trend, Georgia Southern University’s
Center for Business Analytics and Economic Research in the Business Innovation Group
embarked on this multifaceted study that comprised of an analysis of peer communities, an
assessment of the economic conditions, a review of industry trends, and discussions with
industry and local experts.

An analysis of similar efforts in southern communities that are often in competition with
Savannah for industry and talent (i.e. Jacksonville, FL, Charleston, SC, Augusta, GA,
Chattanooga, TN and Greenville, SC) found that these efforts were generally fueled by the
involvement education institutions, were actively involved in talent development, had strong
leadership, and involved broad collaboration. These efforts also involved a significant
investment in infrastructure, in many cases exceeding $100 million in funding. The result was a
concentrated geographic area that contained an incubator/accelerator space that serves as
the convener. These efforts build off agglomeration theory with the majority of innovation
activity occurring within a one-mile radius of the core district.

In comparing the economic profile of these communities, the Savannah Metropolitan

Statistical Area (MSA) ranked lower than its peers in many economic measures. Despite this,
two areas point to the potential for a successful logistics technology corridor in Savannah.
The first is the higher concentration of logistics employment, no doubt fueled by the
presence of the Port. And, the second is a higher concentration of software developers than
peer communities.

Apart from the important role of the Port in developing logistic technology companies,
interviews with 61 area and industry experts highlighted the importance of a strong
transportation system, ample technical talent and access to capital as the three highest-rated
contributors. A more in-depth review of the population trends, economic and business
conditions, and local support for business development suggests that Savannah has sufficient
critical mass to develop and maintain a business incubator.

Another key component of innovation noted in other districts and frequently cited was the
importance of a talent pipeline. Though institutions of higher education are engaged in
research activities that contribute to the development of a focal area in innovation,
manufacturing and supply chain, the largest value cited by experts is the role universities can
play in developing and maintaining the talent pipeline. It is in this vein that universities can
 5

serve as key contributors to ensuring that companies in this sector are able to grow/replenish
their talent workforce.

As a result of the expert interviews, economic analysis, peer community analysis and critical
mass rating index, several next steps and recommendations became apparent. An overview of
these recommendations is as follows:

• Create a planning document. In several of the peer communities analyzed in this

report, the investments in the infrastructure to support the innovation district were
significant. These investments, totaling more than $1.2 billion across five communities,
were instrumental in constructing facilities, improving roads, building smart grids, and
other key infrastructural improvements deemed important by the local leadership.
Creating a planning document could help the community better determine the
investments necessary to build and develop an innovation district to compete with the
peer communities.

• Facilitate access to corporate clientele. Since 2014, though venture capital funding
for logistics companies has grown by 17 times to eclipse $26 billion, most of these
investments were held by only a few companies. Since then, only 120 startups
accounted for 93% of the total funding (Hausman, et al. 2020). While this growth is
encouraging, it does not negate the fact that many interviewed experts cited limited
access to capital for startups as an issue that needs to be remedied. A potential
solution to this issue may lie in the region’s ability to facilitate access to customers,
more specifically, key decision makers. Since experts stated that, as currently
structured, entrepreneurs would have difficulty in “landing clients,” facilitating these
relationships between key corporate decision makers and startups could help area
entrepreneurs gain access to clients and earn the much-needed revenue to fuel the
growth of their enterprises.

• Identify a core site for innovation. Though the relationships with corporate
stakeholders was identified as a key factor in the development of the logistics
technology corridor, the distance among key stakeholders should also be considered.
According to Marshall’s agglomeration theory, the concentration of business activity
can have a positive effect on the economy (Marshall 1920).This can manifest itself
through the sharing of resources, movement of labor, knowledge spillover, etc. This
positive effect can be amplified if the members of the network are located within
proximity of each other, as opposed to being dispersed across a region. In fact,
researchers found that if members of an innovation network are located within one
mile of each other, the rate of innovation can be 10 to 1,000 times greater than if they
were two to five miles apart (Lawrence, Hogan and Brown 2019). Beyond that, a high
degree of dispersion had no measurable effect on innovation.

• Focus on placemaking. Once the core area has been identified, an urban planning
document should be created with key attributes of placemaking in mind. If the
 6

Savannah Logistics Technology Corridor is to develop the kind of attractiveness

centered on the placemaking dynamics of other innovation districts, active
involvement of major corporate partners needs to facilitate knowledge transfer and
serve as potential customers to new companies. The limited presence of investment
capital in the region could be overcome by fostering close relationships with corporate
decision makers operating within close proximity of each other’s network members. By
developing a more densely concentrated area for logistics technology companies and
focusing on placemaking to build a sense of place, the ensuing effort could serve to
entice residents to work longer hours and extend opportunities to collaborate with
corporate partners. Through the designing and building of an environment where
people want to be, the effort to attract skilled works and foster innovation could have
a positive long-term effect on the development of the logistics technology corridor.

• Adopt a phased approach. As in the peer communities, the technology incubator

could serve as a convening location to connect members of the innovation network. A
review of the critical mass index suggests that Savannah has the key factors to
establish a facility. Should a facility be sought, it is recommended that a phased
approach similar to Chattanooga’s be adopted. The targeted size for the facility should
be between 8,000 and 20,000 square feet and the facility ought to be planned to be
placed within a larger innovation district.

• Focus on a very clear niche. A review of the literature highlighting the opportunities
and trends in logistics and advances in technology points to a strong potential for
success and future growth of logistics technology. The most significant impacts on the
industry appear to come from artificial intelligence, blockchain, Internet of things, and
robotic process automation. When combined with the activities of the Port, these
trends could create a unique opportunity for a logistics focused startup.

• Formalize the organizational structure. Through the analysis of the efforts occurring
in the peer communities, combined with the comments obtained from industry and
local experts, the consensus is for the governing structure to be a nonprofit
organization with strong academic and private sector representation.

If done properly, the Savannah Logistics Technology Corridor could serve to bring together
faculty, researchers, students, corporate innovators and entrepreneurs to collaborate,
develop, incubate, and commercialize new ideas and innovations in logistics. Such an effort,
refined to a concentrated district, could complement the business creation and attraction
strategy of the Savannah Economic Development Authority (SEDA), which serves to create,
grow, attract and retain jobs and investments in the region.
 7

Introduction and Comparative Analysis

In recent years, the southeast Georgia economy has been growing. The region is anchored by
the City of Savannah—known for its tree-lined streets, network of city parks, St. Patrick’s Day
celebration, and historic preservation efforts—which is widely regarded as one of the most
walkable cities in the United States. While the city itself is recognized by the general public
for its tourism and as a destination spot for conferences, anyone involved with global trade
knows Savannah holds a prominent spot in the logistics industry.

The city is home to the Port of Savannah, the third busiest and fastest growing container port
in the country. Operated by the Georgia Ports Authority and working in coordination with the
Savannah Port Terminal Railroad (home to the Norfolk Southern and CSX rail lines), the
Savannah Port can deliver products and materials to nearly 70% of the U.S. population by
water, rail, or air within two days of arriving at the port. (SEDA 2020) With plans to double the
capacity of the port within the next decade, Georgia’s gateway to the business world will be a
major driver of economic development and growth in the metro area and throughout the
region (Lee 2020).

Accompanying the expansion of the port is the growth of the broader logistics industry along
with the technology and complimentary industries that support logistics. Savannah is home to
the Georgia Center for Innovation and Logistics (GCIL), which, much like a development
authority, helps companies take advantage of the state’s world-class logistics industry. The
GCIL connects companies to the technical industry expertise, collaborative research, and
partnerships that cargo-companies need with the goal of improving supply chain efficiencies,
supporting growth and increasing global competitiveness. (Markham 2020).

This study examines and assesses the feasibility of developing a Logistics Technology and
Innovation Corridor—a defined, geographical district that acts as a hyper-connected hub to
support emerging technologies, aspiring entrepreneurs, growing business, and collaborative
entities in mixed-use developments. The research team at the Center for Business Analytics
and Economic Research (CBAER) at Georgia Southern University has done an extensive
review and analysis of the innovation corridor concept that could be utilized to spur
innovation in the technology sector supporting logistics and logistics operations. An
innovation corridor involves more than just developing a single facility or promoting
Savannah’s existing resources. It is about creating a dynamic and thriving ecosystem within
the greater Savannah area that not only fuels innovation and develops new technologies for
the logistics industry but also creates a welcoming environment for the employees of those
companies to live, work, shop, eat, and play.
 8

INNOVATION DISTRICTS

For the past several decades, centers of innovation have largely been concentrated in specific
geographic areas like Silicon Valley or in corporate- and university-supported research parks.
Locations such as these are typically situated outside of concentrated urban areas,
disconnected from public transportation, and lack living space and other amenities near such
campuses. More recently, communities have established mixed-use communities that meld
living, working, eating and shopping elements into a single development. This trend has been
instrumental in leading to the creation of a new economic development model for
municipalities and entrepreneurs dubbed “innovation districts.”

The Global Institute on Innovation Districts (GIID) defines these innovation districts as
discrete, walkable areas where anchor institutions, firms, labs, incubators, and other actors
collaborate as a collective to increase their competitive potential. (GIID 2020) These districts
are not self-contained complexes like many mixed-use developments. Instead, innovation
districts are defined, geographic areas that possess the general economic conditions to spur
innovation, promote business growth, and foster job creation while providing an environment
that offers a high quality of life to the employees and a good living environment for
employees working in the district.

The Brookings Institution defines innovation districts as geographic areas where leading-edge
anchor institutions and companies cluster and connect with start-ups, businesses incubators,
and accelerators (Katz and Wagner 2014). While the form and function of these districts vary
markedly across the United States, due to distinctions in regional economies, all contain
economic, physical, and networking assets. Economic assets are defined as the firms,
institutions, and organizations that drive, cultivate, or support an innovation-rich environment.
Physical assets are the public and privately-owned spaces, such as buildings, open spaces,
technologies, streets, and other infrastructure that are collectively designed and organized to
stimulate new and higher levels of connectivity, collaboration, and innovation (Katz, Osha and
Wagner 2019). Social networking assets are the relationships between actors—individuals,
firms, governments, and institutions—that have the potential to generate, sharpen, and
accelerate the advancement of ideas (Katz, Osha and Wagner 2019). When a community
combines these three assets with a supportive, risk-taking culture, it creates an innovation
ecosystem that facilitates idea generation and accelerates commercialization. Today, the
United States has more than 20 innovation districts and more than 100 such districts exist
around the globe (GIID 2020).

HISTORY

What constitutes an innovation district and the dynamics that led to their development have
changed over time. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the industrial revolution led to mass
urbanization as well as higher levels of productivity, profit, and prosperity (Groves and Muller
1979). Urbanization concentrated around the industrial districts that formed with high
 9

concentrations of manufacturing businesses engaged in complementary practices, such as

New York’s meatpacking and garment districts and Detroit’s automotive industry. These
districts emerged within cities based on different product types, methods of production,
available resources, and labor forces.

Later in the 20th century, manufacturing activity changed and eventually dispersed across the
globe causing a sharp decline in U.S production. This geographic dispersion, along with
technological advancements, helped to drive the creation of research parks as communities
sought to redefine and modernize the industries in their area (Dahlstrand and Smith 2009).
These research parks, often tied to a state or regional university, were physical environments
that generated, attracted, and retained science and technology companies with the goal of
aligning their talent with public, private, and federal research laboratories (AURP 2020).

Some of the oldest and most notable research parks began in the 1950s through the
collaborative efforts of universities, private
developers, and governments. These parks built
upon clusters of labs and firms with the intent of
commercializing research and attracting
entrepreneurial-minded scientists from industry
and academia. Some of the oldest research parks
include Stanford Research Park (known as the
epicenter of the Silicon Valley) and Research
Triangle Park in Raleigh Durham. Unlike urban
industrial districts that were often located in the
urban core, research parks were isolated and Stanford Research Park, 1951
encouraged a culture of secrecy. Source: standfordresearchpark.com

Although research parks still play a huge role in innovation and the commercialization of new
discoveries, the widespread availability of technology shifted the geography of where and
how innovation occurs. While the clustering of industries and the businesses that support
them is still a key component of collaboration and growth, it is no longer desirable to develop
these clusters in isolation. This shift in where companies locate, how buildings are designed,
and even where people want to live is changing.

MOVING FORWARD

When assets properly align, they form an innovation ecosystem. Practitioners suggest
auditing assets as a critical first step when developing an innovation district. The Global
Institute on Innovation Districts specifies five asset-based strategies used to define and
measure innovation districts. These include creating a clear competitive advantage, building
critical mass, facilitating convergence, developing quality of place, and orchestrating a
“buzzing,” connected community (Katz, Osha and Wagner 2019). Central to these strategies is
the important role that placemaking can have on fostering and promoting innovation.
 10

This study provides an overview of the activities in comparative southern American cities to
foster innovation in a specific industry sector. It also provides an analysis of the dynamics
present within the Savannah corridor and compares the economic dynamics of the selected
cities. The analysis includes discussions with industry and local experts and creates a critical
mass index to determine the feasibility of an innovation center in the logistics technology
sector and outlines some recommendations to develop and sustain such an effort.

APPROACH

The research team adopted a three-phase approach to the logistics technology overview
component of this study. This approach was driven by the objective of answering two
questions that are of importance to proposed LTIC and SLTIC initiatives:

• What is the state of logistics-based technological development, spending, and

implementation activity?

• What unique value proposition can a center offer the SLTIC and its constituents to
drive logistics technology development and innovation activity in the Savannah
metropolitan area?
The first phase of the research entailed conducting a comprehensive review of industry
reports, technical documents, and prior research (i) to determine modern techniques in
developing logistics technology and fostering innovation, (ii) to determine the segments,
service offerings and processes within the logistics industry that are experiencing growth in
technological disruption, and (iii) to gain an understanding of the logistics technology
investing landscape and measure interest from investors and corporations for technology-
based investment opportunities.

The second phase of the approach entailed conducting interviews with 61 logistics technology
experts to contextualize and triangulate the findings from the first phase, as well as to gather
additional insights through custom questions targeted to discovering the LTIC and SLTIC-
specific contexts and ecosystem.

The third phase of the approach involved synthesizing the findings from each of the
preceding phases and utilizing key findings as input to defining the potential value
proposition an LTIC can deliver for SLTIC activities. Further, the research team will develop a
perspective on the types of programming and initiatives that can be advanced to position the
LTIC to be a highly relevant and impactful resource to the logistics technology and innovation
community as, well as the greater Savannah economy.

Overall, the study will identify the typical areas of focus for similar innovation efforts, primarily
in comparable areas located in the southeastern United States. It will identify where these
centers are located and highlight the key ideas that separate them from traditional academic
 11

research centers or other support facilities for new businesses. It will also incorporate the
preliminary findings of the Georgia Southern University Research Committee, which was
tasked to identify potential focal areas for continued research.

One of the components of the study is a Logistics Technology Overview. This summary
provides a thorough investigation of both secondary and primary sources of information. It
aims to provide an overview of logistics technology development, markets, and stakeholder
perspectives with these findings serving as input in the planning and development of strategy
and programming for the proposed LTIC, and the broader SLTIC. The objective of this
component is to provide an overview of the state of technology in logistics; to provide
insights on opportunities and challenges associated with logistics technologies, logistics
technology companies, and the users of these technologies; and to inform the planning,
programming, and development of the LTIC—a center purposed to support logistics
technology development and innovation in the SLTIC area. Additionally, the research team
will develop a critical mass rating score—based on population trends, economic and business
conditions, and local support for business development—using this primary information and
other secondary data.

COMPARABLE DISTRICTS

One of the key economic drivers to creating an innovation district is having a collaborative
leadership network: a collection of leaders from key institutions, firms, and sectors who
regularly and formally cooperate on the design, delivery, marketing, and governance of the
district. A successful model for this leadership
network is the Triple Helix model that includes
research universities, industry groups, and
government entities coming together
(Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 1995). In addition
to collaborative efforts, it is often quite
valuable to have one person, or a small team,
serve as a catalyst, integrator, or facilitator
throughout the process (Katz and Wagner
2014).

Working with the Savannah Economic

Development Authority (SEDA), the research
team identified communities in the
southeastern region of the United States that
compete with Savannah for talent, business
growth, and investment. Together, Jacksonville, Florida, and Charleston, South Carolina, were
identified as competitors. After additional discussions with SEDA and the university research
committee, Greenville, South Carolina; Chattanooga, Tennessee; and Augusta, Georgia, were
also identified. Each of these communities has embarked on the development of an innovation
 12

district initiative with varying degrees of complexity and success. The following section
focuses on dissecting these efforts as well as identifying key components that the research
team found relevant to the development of a similar district in Savannah. In addition, several
of the comparable areas began with or currently utilize the Triple Helix model, which assisted
the strategic growth of innovation and entrepreneurship.

Chattanooga

In 2008, Chattanooga accessed $228 million in U.S. bond markets to fund the initial
construction of its smart grid and advanced communications network. The Electric Power
Board (EPB) of Chattanooga started construction in 2009 and was awarded $111 million in
funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act from the Department of
Energy, which helped the city complete the network expediently. EPB built one of the world’s
most extensive, municipal high-speed Internet networks with more than 9,000 miles of fiber
throughout 600 square miles across two states (Katz 2015).

Chattanooga is one of the first mid-sized cities to successfully develop an innovation district.
The City of Chattanooga leveraged and capitalized on its “Gig City” status to create a
thriving downtown district. In 2013, Andy Berke was elected mayor and started assembling a
group of citizens and leaders to lead a task force on how best to leverage the city’s high-
speed, gigabyte Internet access (“Gig”) to turn Chattanooga into a regional hub for
innovation-oriented firms and startups. The Enterprise Center—a non-profit organization with
a local board of directors—was born out of the task force's recommendation to form an
innovation district. In 2015, the city officially designated 140 acres downtown as the Innovation
District of Chattanooga. The district is anchored by the Edney Innovation Center, EPB, the
Lamp Post Group and the University of Tennessee Chattanooga (IDC 2020).

Greenville

Greenville, South Carolina, where a group of private industry entrepreneurs partnered with
the Greenville Chamber of Commerce, the City of Greenville, and Hughes Development
Corporation to create the Next Innovation Center (NEXT) also used the Triple-Helix model.
Started in 2007, NEXT was housed in a 60,000 square foot building on the Swamp Rabbit
Trail in Downtown Greenville. The development of NEXT started within the Greenville
Chamber but was changed to a model based on the Charleston Digital Corridor after a
Greenville leadership group visited the area.

In 2004, Clemson University also worked with BMW to develop the Clemson University
International Center for Automotive Research (CU-ICAR). With a lead investment of $40
million from the South Carolina Department of Economic Development, CU-ICAR has since
amassed more than $300 million in funding and spurred more than $1.6 billion in private sector
investment in automotive technologies (Parilla 2018).
 13

Charleston

The Charleston Digital Corridor (CDC) began in 2001 with a funding commitment of $125,000
per year for 10 years from the City of Charleston. A community-sourced initiative created a
board to govern the Charleston Digital Corridor Foundation. (Charleston Digital Corridor
2020). Charleston did not fit the Triple-helix model as it began because of no university
involvement and limited private sector engagement. Despite that, over the past decade the
CDC has been successful in growing tech jobs and bolstering wages throughout the corridor.
In the early 2000’s, property values on the peninsula skyrocketed as wages, which were
formerly based primarily on tourism and service industries, could not keep up.

Lacking private partners, these efforts were led largely by the city and local community. In
2010, the South Carolina Research Authority (SCRA) worked with the city to engage the
Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) to repurpose an old mattress factory into the
SARC MUSC Innovation Center. While Charleston is doing well creating places for
innovation, until recently its efforts have been fragmented throughout the city rather than in
defined districts.

Augusta

In Augusta, as the Department of Defense was investing $2.5 billion into Fort Gordon Army
installation, Augusta University seized the opportunity to partner with the state to create the
Georgia Cyber Center. Opened in 2018, Georgia’s then-Governor Nathan Deal allocated $100
million in state funds to convert two buildings on the river in downtown Augusta into an
innovation center focused on drone development and military-focused technology (Smith
2012).

Jacksonville

Jacksonville has yet to find the right combination of partners to create a true innovation
district in the heart of the city. A first attempt to create an entrepreneurial environment was
started by three young professionals in the Jacksonville startup scene. Their idea, “One
Spark”—an annual, multi-day festival that sought to connect entrepreneurs and their projects
with crowdfunding from event attendees—was launched in 2013. Excitement and funding for
the event never quite produced the anticipated results, however.

Jacksonville is still looking to capitalize on the entrepreneurs and innovators who have
located downtown in the past few years. The Downtown Investment Authority of Jacksonville,
the Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA), Chamber, JEA (a non-profit, community-
owned utility), and the North Florida Smart Region Coalition are working to create the Bay
Jax Innovation Corridor in downtown. With a $25 million award from the federal DOT BUILD
program, a collaboration between the state, JEA, and JTA has identified and chosen to
contribute additional matching funds to develop the corridor. In addition, $9.5 million from the
 14

private sector and an additional $2 million federal smart tech award are pledged to the
project (Derby 2018).

In analyzing each of these efforts the research team selected three emergent themes found
to be relevant to the development of the logistics technology corridor: educational institution
involvement, talent development, and facilitating access to capital.

While Jacksonville, FL is still working on their innovation

district, just over an hour southwest in Gainesville,
the University of Florida is leading the development of a
new innovation district. Labeled UF Innovate | The Hub
(The Hub), the district is quickly becoming the “hub” of
the North Central Florida entrepreneurial ecosystem.

The Hub opened in 2011, as a 48,000 square foot facility

with $8.2 million in federal funding from the EDA and a
$5 million investment from UF. It was so successful that the EDA awarded a second $8 million
grant with UF investing another $9 million in 2015 expanding the total facility to 100,000 square
feet (PRNewswire 2020).

Apart from a business incubator, The Hub comprises the UF Innovate | Tech Licensing, UF
Innovate | Ventures, and UF Innovate | Sid Martin Biotech. Sid Martin Biotech is regarded as one
of the leading business incubators in biotechnology.

The Hub helped to transform the entrepreneurial landscape and culture of Gainesville, and
propelled the city into being recognized as one of the top tech communities in the Southeast.
Since its inception, The Hub has helped generate over $10.4 billion in private investment and
launched over 200 startups which have created more than 7,900 jobs (UF Innovate 2020).

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION INVOLVEMENT

Upon examination of these innovation centers and districts, most of these cities made a
concerted effort to include the strategic engagement of a university, often in a leadership
role. In the case of Jacksonville, the University of North Florida (UNF) recognized this gap for
Downtown Jacksonville and elected to open the Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation
in the first two floors of the Barnett National Bank Building in 2019 (Pease 2019).

In Charleston, developers looked to capitalize on the proximity to higher education

institutions by creating WestEdge—a newly developed district with space for state-of-the-art
labs, incubator and accelerator space, general office space, restaurants, retail, and hotels. The
WestEdge district is surrounded by the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC), Roper
 15

St. Francis Healthcare, the College of Charleston, and the Citadel. Partnering with MUSC,
WestEdge created a vibrant environment for collaboration and innovation designed to attract
and retain healthcare and research talent. The development will double MUSC’s acreage
while adding research and office space within walking distance of campus. The Charleston
Digital Corridor will also have 8,000 square feet dedicated to Flagship WestEdge, which is
focused on assisting early-stage and startup life science and tech companies (WestEdge
2020).

In 2017, the College of Charleston created a new Computer Science Student Innovation
Center with a rapid prototyping makerspace, virtual reality room, conference room, and large
collaboration space at its Harbor Walk Campus. Within the new center is the Computing
Professionals and Student Scholars (COMPASS) space where area companies like Boeing,
Booz Allen Hamilton, and Benefitfocus have employees located alongside professors and
students. Department Chair and Professor of Computer Science at the College of Charleston
Sebastian van Delden, a member of the Charleston Digital Corridor and the driving force
behind COMPASS, is helping students secure jobs in the local area.

Clemson University has a very large presence on the outskirts of Greenville with the Clemson
University International Center for Automotive Research (CU-ICAR). Founded in 2007, the
CU-ICAR facility was driven by the University as well as private investment. Greenville is also
home to the NEXT Innovation Center, which was developed to create connections
throughout the community. NEXT launched Intern Greenville in 2011 in order to connect its
entrepreneurs with interns from Clemson University, Furman University, USC Upstate and
Greenville Technical College. NEXT also created a Fellows program to help engage and
retain innovative talent from Clemson and Furman. While the universities and other
educational institutions may partner with NEXT on some projects, they do not have a
leadership role in what NEXT does.

Much like Clemson University is involved with CU-ICAR with its department of automotive
engineering educational programming at the research park, Augusta University has a
relationship with the Georgia Cyber Center. Located within the Georgia Cyber Center is
Augusta University’s School of Computer and Cyber Sciences where students participating in
the center can work alongside industry and government professionals.

Although Chattanooga has a great leadership model and a thriving Innovation District, plans
for the district did not initially include a presence for the University of Tennessee at
Chattanooga (UTC). A 2018 study of the district encouraged adding more affordable housing,
modern office space, and utilizing the area as a testbed for research. As a result, UTC became
more involved and joined the City of Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Erlanger Hospital,
Co.Lab and the Enterprise Center to form the Chattanooga Smart Community Collaborative
aimed at pursuing and funding smart city research. This research is largely handled by UTC’s
new Center for Urban Informatics and Progress (CUIP), which received two National Science
Foundation Research grants to work on applications that need gigabit Internet.
 16

UTC also developed 5,700 square feet of space for the University’s Center for Innovation and
Entrepreneurship, located in the James R. Mapp building on campus. Opened in 2019, the
center was designed to connect UTC to the Innovation District, offering incubator space,
meeting rooms, classrooms, flexible event space, a makerspace, and access to mentors and an
entrepreneur-in-residence.

TALENT DEVELOPMENT

Katz and Wagner (2014) suggest that talent and technology are the twin drivers of innovation
districts. Talent is loosely defined as workers with specialized skills necessary to generate new
discoveries, commercialize ideas, design new products, and develop new production methods,
then manage, brand, and package those products for the marketplace. Technology, in this
case, is defined as the tools, machines, infrastructure, and systems that help talented workers
engineer industrial breakthroughs, disentangle big data and complex problems, and facilitate
the production process that follows. Even if the higher education institutions in these districts
have not been directly involved with developing the districts, they have all contributed by
training talent (Katz and Wagner 2014).

Before innovation centers or districts were created in the cities and regions studied, these
places struggled with unemployment and brain drain as people left the area in search of
gainful employment. Recently, as these areas have grown, they have utilized technology to
connect startups and companies in their programs with talent. Charleston has the most robust
of these systems called CharlestonWorks.

CharlestonWorks, managed by the Charleston Digital Corridor, is a map and directory of

known technology and tech-related companies in the Charleston area. The resource is a user-
friendly website on which companies and talent alike can post profiles to connect for career
opportunities. The CDC also runs a site called CharlestonCodes that connects users with all
the area’s educational offerings in programming and coding. In Greenville, NEXT hosts a job
board for its area companies, as does the Georgia Cyber Center (Andrade 2020).

Universities are not the only drivers of talent in the districts studied. In Chattanooga,
stakeholders at the Enterprise Center started a digital inclusion program for residents in
Hamilton County called Tech Goes Home Chattanooga (TGH CHA). Modeled after Boston’s
award-winning program Tech Goes Home, TGH CHA partners with local schools, public
libraries, churches, nonprofits and other organizations to provide free courses that help
residents develop skills for smart technology and Internet use. After completing the 15-hour
course, participants can purchase a Chromebook for $50 and receive assistance to get low-
cost home Internet.

In Augusta, not only can students get a full degree from the university, but the Georgia Cyber
Center also offers certificates for learners at all levels through the Cyber Workforce
 17

Academy. Cyber Augusta, another offering of Augusta’s Georgia Cyber Center, aims to
prepare program participants for cyber careers.

LEADERSHIP, COLLABORATION AND COMMUNITY

A key attribute that emerged in each analyzed area is the important role leadership,
collaboration and building a sense of community had on the development of their innovation
efforts. In individual discussions with key district staff, the role of community leadership was
regularly mentioned as a key contributor to the development and growth of the innovation
district. Often mentioned was the importance of having a group of committed and passionate
leaders working in unison to advance the objectives associated with building innovation
outcomes in the community. The passion and effort of the leaders eventually led to broader
community engagement.

In the cases of Jacksonville, Charleston, and Chattanooga, leadership for their innovation
districts was primarily fueled by city officials. In each location, the city served as a strong
supporter and convener of the effort. Charleston had the added benefit of including a
broader range of support. There, the WestEdge also received the support of the Medical
University of South Carolina and a private developer. The cities’ leadership was not as
prevalent in the other two communities. In Greenville, the Chamber of Commerce worked
with the private sector to launch its initiative, whereas, in Augusta, the innovation effort was
primarily funded by the state with buy-in from the university, technical college systems, and
military.

Each of the district leaders spoken to for this research also indicated that collaboration and
ecosystem building was a key factor in the successful development of their innovation
districts. For instance, leaders in Chattanooga attribute some of its success to the Edney
Innovation Center and Startup Week for their combined ability to bring together the
community to share resources. According to Kevin Love, community & external relationships
manager at the Enterprise Center in Chattanooga, “In my opinion, the biggest catalyst to
helping grow the Innovation District and the Enterprise Center has been the amazing
collaborations between nonprofit organizations, companies, start-ups, artists, musicians and
local government” (Love, email interview, June 18, 2020).

In Greenville, NEXT focused on understanding the needs of the entrepreneurial community

and building a community to address the needs. According to Brenda Laasko, vice president
of NEXT Upstate, considerable energy and effort was devoted to cultivating the pipeline of
entrepreneurs. (Laasko, phone interview, June 19, 2020). Rather than focus on industry
clusters or the stage of business development, NEXT sought to build a critical mass of
entrepreneurs and develop programing to meet their needs. NEXT facilitated CEO forums,
the MIT mentoring program, and launched a virtual incubator to provide resources to
strengthen the skills of entrepreneurs rather than to support individual ventures. NEXT
established criteria for entrepreneurs to join that included an agreement to be headquartered
 18

in the Upstate region, ownership of a unique product or service, and the ability to sell
nationally or internationally. NEXT does not own any facilities, but, in Greenville, three
facilities have NEXT
branding with only
entrepreneurs in the
NEXT network
allowed to lease
space within them.

Similarly, the
Charleston Digital
Corridor was built on
leveraging
relationships and
legislative access to
help startup
companies. The
strength of these
relationships has not
only aided launching The NEXT Innovation Center located in Greenville, SC
of a single incubator Source: greenvillenext.com
but has fueled the
growth of a network of incubators. While in Augusta, the state’s heavy investment in cyber
technology has attracted several cyber-focused companies and brought jobs. Though the
effort is contained in a single location, at its peak, the incubator supported roughly 230
members. With the onslaught of the novel coronavirus pandemic, that number has fallen to
only 83 members.

FACILITATING ACCESS TO CAPITAL

Capital is a necessary ingredient to fuel district growth and expansion (Katz and Wagner
2014). For innovation districts to reach their full potential, they must have an infusion of
capital - either from local resources, governments, and development authorities, or by getting
outside investors to infuse capital into the district. Capital also takes many forms including
seed funds, tax incentives, federal grants, state funds, and philanthropic giving. The following
table outlines some of the larger initiatives in the analyzed communities.

District
Chattanooga Innovation District 2008
North Shore Chattanooga
Charleston Digital Corridor
WestEdge Development
NEXT Greenville
Clemson University - ICAR
Georgia Cyber Center
Bay Jax Innovation Corridor
*dollars in thousands, data collected by the CBAER research team
19
Table 1: Investment Amounts & Sources for Innovation Districts
Year Investment* Sources Use of Funds
$228,000 Bonds Construction of smart grid
$111,000 Dept. of Energy: American Recovery & Reinvestment Act Construction of smart grid
Economic Development Administration and Appalachian Renovations to INCubator @Hamilton Co. Business
1984 $4,000
Regional Commission Development Center
$4,000 City and County matching funds Renovations to 3M gave the building to Hamilton Co.
2009 $4,900 Hamilton County Renovations
2009 $120 City of Charleston Create incubator facility (Flagship)
2011 $500 City of Charleston Create second incubator facility (Flagship2)
2011 $125 Private property owner
2013 $1,780 City of Charleston Land Acquisition
Construction of Charleston Tech Center, plus parking
2019 $54,000 City of Charleston, Iron Bridge Capital, LLC, CDC
garage (Flagship3).
2020 $337 City of Charleston
$380,000 $20M from MUSC foundation; remainder Gateway Ventures Build out of district infrastructure and buildings.
2006 $250 Greenville Chamber of Commerce Annual operational support for incubator (NEXT)
Up to $400 City, county and state grants Annual operational support for incubator (NEXT)
2004 $40,000 S.C. Dept. of Commerce Infrastructure and operations
2004 $70,000 State of South Carolina Research University Infrastructure Bond Act
2004 $26,400 CU Real Estate Foundation Real estate acquisition
2004 $95,500 State and local government Infrastructure and operations
2004 $111,500 Private Sector Equipment, research support, faculty chairs, etc.
Construction of facility to house incubator, training
2018 $100,000 State of Georgia
center, etc.
2019 $25,000 DOT BUILD award Roads, smart city investment, autonomous vehicles
2019 $13,900 JTA & JEA
2019 $2,000 Smart Tech federal award
2019 $9,500 Private Sector Investment
 20

In 2008, Chattanooga accessed $228 million in U.S. bond markets to fund the initial
construction of its smart grid and advanced communications network. The Electric Power
Board (EPB) of Chattanooga started construction in 2009 and was awarded $111 million in
funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act from the U.S. Department of
Energy. These additional grant funds helped the community construct one of the world’s most
extensive municipal high-speed Internet networks. In total, the smart grid contains more than
9,000 miles of fiber throughout 600 square miles across two states.

Similarly, the Downtown Investment Authority of Jacksonville, Jacksonville Transportation

Authority, JAX Chamber, JEA (community owned electric, water, and sewer utility), and North
Florida Smart Region Coalition are working on creating the Bay Jax Innovation Corridor
downtown with a $25 million award from the federal DOT BUILD program. The state, JEA and
JTA are putting in matching funds. In addition, the effort has secured another $9.5 million
from the private sector and $2 million through a federal smart tech award.

While in Greenville, an initial $40 million from the South Carolina Department of Commerce
was used to springboard the CU-ICAR. Since this initial investment in 2004, the district has
secured an additional $300 million in state, university and private sector support. In 2017,
these investments helped support BMW’s existing presence in the area and helped convince
the company to add an additional $600 million in private investments. It also helped the
community parlay these investments to attract an additional $1 billion in private sector
investments from automaker, Volvo, a move that helped solidify the region as a leader in
automotive technologies (Parilla 2018).

Apart from the capital necessary to develop the district, many innovation districts play a
significant role in the development of a network to facilitate capital access to entrepreneurs.
Charleston Digital Corridor, Chattanooga Innovation District and NEXT in Greenville have
made it part of their missions to develop a network of investors for tech entrepreneurs in
their areas.

The City of Charleston has a few angel investment partners and venture capital firms. As
such, the Charleston Digital Corridor does not see its role as pulling capital together as much
as it does in identifying potential investors and making information available to local
entrepreneurs in an efficient manner. As a result, startups in the corridor have raised a
cumulative $1.8 billion according to its 2019 annual report.

Likewise, Chattanooga has several venture capital firms and funds in the area. Dynamo is a
venture capital company that invests in supply chain and mobility startups. The CoLab helps
connect entrepreneurs with KIVA for community-funded zero percent interest loans. The
Lamp Post Group, an anchor in the Innovation District, is a venture incubator providing
mentorship and capital to growing startups. Chattanooga is also home to the Chattanooga
Renaissance Fund and the Community Foundation of Greater Chattanooga's Accelerator
 21

Loan Program (CFGS). Chattanooga CoLab entrepreneurs have raised more than $120
million.

While Charleston and Chattanooga have established capital networks, the NEXT network in
Greenville took it a step farther. There, NEXT worked to seed the Upstate Carolina Angel
Network (UCAN) to make it easier for local startups to access early-stage capital. The effort
has grown over the years and is now known as Venture South (which recently began holding
meet-up sessions in the Bluffton, SC area). Greenville also created the NEXT Venture
Mentoring Service based on the MIT model to provide unbiased, conflict-free, practical,
actionable advice to entrepreneurs. In 2019, the program had 31 mentors and 18 ventures. In
total, NEXT entrepreneurs have raised more than $296.4 million dollars.

For many districts, the convening nature of the ecosystem occurs in a physical location. In
each innovation district lies an incubator or accelerator that serves as the cornerstone of
startup activity. Each respective incubator serves as a physical location whereby the network
of businesses and entrepreneurs can interact with each other to share and cultivate new
ideas. Table 2 summarizes the incubators found in their respective innovation districts, along
with the year they were established and relative sizes.

Table 2: Innovation District Incubator

Area Incubator name Year est. Ownership Incubator (ft2)

Chattanooga The Edney Center 2015 Non-profit 90,000
Flagship (retired 2018) 2009 Non-profit 5.200
Flagship2 (retired 2018) 2011 Non-profit 13,700
Charleston
Flagship Bridge 2019 Non-profit 15,000
Flagship–WestEdge 2020 Non-profit 8,000
Flagship3 @ Charleston Tech Center 2021 Non-profit 16,000
NEXT Innovation Center 2007 Private 60,000
Greenville NEXT on Main 2015 Private 20,000
NEXT Manufacturing 2016 Private 40,000
Augusta The Clubhouse 2018 Non-profit 7,000
Jacksonville UNF Ent. & Innovation Center 2019 Public IHE 16,000

The Charleston Digital Corridor started with the intention of bringing existing technology
companies together as a community to develop specific market-oriented programs designed
at talent attraction and business incubation. The city invested in incubation to accelerate
development of high-wage, high-impact knowledge-based companies. Charleston launched its
first incubator in 2009 and has expanded three times since. Next year, Charleston will open
 22

the doors on a new 92,000 square foot mixed use development with Flagship3 taking up the
second floor (16,000 ft2).

In Chattanooga, Co.Lab comprises a portion of the first floor of the 90,000 square-foot, ten-
story, privately-owned Edney Innovation Center. The Edney Innovation Center is widely
regarded as the “front door” of the Chattanooga Innovation District.

Additionally, the City and the Medical University of South Carolina’s Foundation came
together to create the WestEdge District on the westside of the Charleston peninsula. They
collaborated to develop a master plan and put out an RFP to find a developer who could take
the vision and make it a reality. The first phase is nearly complete with three large buildings
consisting of multifamily residential, commercial retail (a new Publix and restaurants), and
commercial office. Flagship–WestEdge takes up 8,000 square feet at 22 WestEdge. The
commercial office building has a total of 160,000 square feet and, currently, consists of co-
working and event space, wet labs, and clinical research space, as well as retail on the first
floor.

Regardless of location or size, central to each innovation is a clear industry focus that
articulates the central theme of the district. Their respective themes not only clarify the value
proposition of the district by resonating with intended clientele, they support the
development of an innovation ecosystem that extends beyond each community and is
reflective of the needs (assets) of a broader region. The next section explores the dynamics of
logistics technology and innovation and seeks to outline whether trends in this sector point to
a potential to serve as an innovation catalyst.

An assessment of the collective findings from the research conducted by the research team
regarding logistics technology and innovations suggests that logistics technology and
innovation not only play a central role in the substantial efficiency gains across company
logistics networks and operations but also are set to be the catalysts for disruption and value-
creation in an industry that welcomes them (See Appendix A). Findings therefore suggest that
the pursuit of developing an SLTIC and a supporting LTIC can be of immense value to the
Savannah area, similar to the roles the Cyber Center, The Enterprise Center, Charleston
Digital Corridor, Bay Jax Innovation Corridor, and CU-ICAR play in the development of the
innovation ecosystem in Augusta, Chattanooga, Charleston, Jacksonville, and Greenville,
respectively.
 23

Economic Overview (U.S., GA, & Study Area)

This segment of the analysis compared the Savannah area to a group of five different
communities from the southeastern United States previously identified:

● Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia, and South Carolina Metropolitan Statistical Area

● Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Georgia Metropolitan Statistical Area
● Charleston-North Charleston, South Carolina, Metropolitan Statistical Area
● Jacksonville, Florida, Metropolitan Statistical Area
● Greenville-Anderson, South Carolina, Metropolitan Statistical Area

These communities were selected based on documentation provided by and based on

consultation with SEDA staff for their likelihood to compete for businesses and innovation
talent by businesses in (or considering location to) the Savannah MSA.

The data presented in this section focuses on the logistics industries as this sector was used in
the Georgia Center of Innovation for Logistics economic impact analysis prepared in 2018.
This report was selected because it creates consistency between existing research in the
state of Georgia and this analysis. The sectors used in this analysis, listed by standard NAICS
codes, are presented in Table 3.
 24

Table 3: Logistics Industry in Georgia

NAICS Code and Description

481 Air Transportation
482 Rail Transportation
483 Water Transportation
483111 Deep Sea Freight Transportation
483113 Coastal and Great Lakes Freight Transportation
484 Truck Transportation
484121 General Freight Trucking, Long-Distance, Truckload
484122 General Freight Trucking, Long-Distance, Less Than Truckload
484220 Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) Trucking, Local
488 Support Activities for Transportation
488111 Air Traffic Control
488119 Other Airport Operations
488190 Other Support Activities for Air Transportation
488210 Support Activities for Rail Transportation
488320 Marine Cargo Handling
488330 Navigational Services to Shipping
488510 Freight Transportation Arrangement
488991 Packing and Crating
488999 All Other Support Activities for Transportation
491 Postal Service
492 Couriers and Messengers
492110 Couriers and Express Delivery Services
492210 Local Messengers and Local Delivery
493 Warehousing and Storage
493110 General Warehousing and Storage
493120 Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage
493130 Farm Product Warehousing and Storage
541 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services
541614 Process, Physical Distribution, and Logistics Consulting Services
Source: Georgia Center of Innovation for Logistics, In Motion A Study of Georgia’s Logistics Industry in 2018

The research team used a report by The Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of
Commerce, which aimed to identify and define the state of the digital economy, to define the
technology industry in this analysis. To develop a more accurate picture, the team removed
the sectors focused on manufacturing hardware/physical products and, instead, focused on
the service side of the industry. The segments of technology the industry included in this
analysis cover software development, support services, telecommunications, e-commerce and
digital media and the corresponding NAICS codes are listed in Table 4.
 25

Table 4: Technology Industry in Georgia

NAICS Industrial Sector Segment of Industry

334 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing Telecommunications
Electrical Equipment Markets and Agents and
335 Telecommunications
Brokers
5112 Software Publishers Software
5415 Computer Systems Design and Related Services Software/Support services
518 Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services Support Services/Digital media
611420 Computer Training Support Services
Computer and Office Machine Repair and
811212 Support Services
Maintenance
517 Telecommunications Telecommunications
Wholesale Electronic Markets and Agents and E-Commerce Business to
425
Brokers Business
E-Commerce Business to
4541 Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses
Consumer
512 Motion Picture and Sound Recording Industries Digital Media
515 Broadcasting Digital Media
519 Other Information Services Digital Media
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, (3/15/2018) Defining and Measuring the Digital Economy

Each of these areas is linked to Savannah in one of three ways:

1) the community was used in a different SEDA funded study,

2) the community has a logistics/technology sector similar to the Savannah area, or
3) the community hosts and supports an innovation district.

The MSAs were used because these communities, much like Savannah, typically attract labor
from the surrounding local communities. This allows skilled workers that live in the smaller
communities throughout the region to utilize their talents in the larger metropolitan area.
These commuter flows can aid regional economic development by increasing the amount of
available labor in some industries. The general labor flows for the Savannah MSA area are
listed in Table 5.
 26

Table 5: Complete Local Area Commuter Flows to Chatham County & Within Local County

Commuting Flow
Residence Place of Work Local MSA Areas
per 1000 employed
Bryan County 154
Bryan County Savannah MSA
Chatham County 280
All Listed Area 40
Chatham County Savannah MSA
Chatham County 747
Effingham County 183
Effingham County Savannah MSA
Chatham County 336
Bulloch County 390 Savannah-Hinesville-
Bulloch County
Chatham County 48 Statesboro
Liberty County 501 Savannah-Hinesville-
Liberty County
Chatham County 67 Statesboro
Long County 83 Savannah-Hinesville-
Long County
Chatham County 33 Statesboro
Beaufort County 459 Hilton-Head Island
Beaufort County, SC
Chatham County 10 Bluffton-Beaufort
Jasper County 222 Hilton-Head Island
Jasper County, SC
Chatham County 34 Bluffton-Beaufort
Source: Commuting Flows, American Commuting Survey, 2011-2015 Year ACS Commuting Flows

The data illustrate that Chatham County is generally pulling in labor from across the local
area rather equally. Within the Savannah MSA, more residents from Bryan and Effingham
counties provide labor to Chatham County than they provide for their own counties. In
addition, Chatham County commuters typically work within the county in which they live.
Within the wider Combined Statistical Area, Bulloch, Liberty and Long counties are sending
notable amounts of their workforce to Chatham County. Based on the same commuter data, a
larger portion of workers in these counties work in these communities rather than travel to
Chatham County for work.

Because Chatham County is drawing labor from communities throughout the SMCA,
generally, projects developed in the area will draw most of their labor force from Chatham
County. This does not mean that other communities do not contribute portions of their labor
forces, but rather that a hiring manager must realize the primary labor provider in the region
will be from Chatham County. A major constraint to this general idea is that the skills in the
local labor market need to match the jobs being offered for this to occur. When the local
labor market cannot meet this demand, some specialized skills will need to be imported from
other areas. With the technology industry’s specific set of required skills, importing labor from
surrounding areas will be highly likely in this sector.

Next, the team examined the total GDP of each statistical area from the comparison group in
order to get a better picture of the size of each economy. The GDP figures for these regions
are listed in Figure 1.
 27

Figure 1: Total Group Regional Product within Comparison Group

$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
Augusta- Charleston-
Greenville-
Savannah, GA Richmond North Chattanooga, Jacksonville,
Anderson, SC
MSA County, GA- Charleston, TN-GA MSA FL MSA
MSA
SC MSA SC MSA
in millions $19,811.20 $25,914.27 $42,430.76 $29,012.31 $42,674.90 $75,818.67

Source: JobsEQ, Chmura Economics

With Savannah having the smallest economy in this comparison group, the research team
used a much more focused analysis to look at the target Logistics and Technology industries.
Also, when possible, Chatham County will be used as the area in the data analysis; however,
for consistency, the Savannah MSA will also be used to ensure that the comparison being
conducted remains valuable to the end users of this analysis.

The analysis uses both private employment and self-employment categories. In the industrial
segment of this analysis, our team is solely focused on these two factors because they best fit
the clients being encouraged to join the proposed innovation district. The GDP data
presented in Table 6 is organized following this setup. This also means that all federal, state,
or local government economic activities are not covered.

Table 6: Gross Regional Product by Industry Segment & Type of Employment*

Savannah, Augusta, Chattanooga Charleston Greenville Jacksonville
GA MSA GA-SC MSA TN-GA MSA SC MSA SC MSA FL MSA
Private $758.40 $228.38 $757.62 $940.01 $784.06 $2,606.25
Logistics
Self-employment $31.92 $29.13 $41.83 $41.63 $40.22 $97.18
Private $613.02 $973.16 $1,381.82 $2,864.65 $3,464.03 $5,945.14
Technology
Self-employment $92.25 $73.05 $138.12 $128.08 $138.47 $249.42
*Dollars in $1,000,000 Source: JobsEQ, Chmura Economics
 28

The research team used the Savannah MSA instead of Chatham County to keep the
comparisons consistent. When using the Savannah MSA, Chatham County has the most
businesses active in each segment of the analysis. Within the logistics industry, 96% of the
private sector activity and 69% of the self-employed activity are based in Chatham County. In
the technology industry, 75% of private employment and 80% of self-employment is based in
Chatham County. By a wide margin, Chatham County is the leader in supplying employment
for both industries.

Based on these data, the private sector logistics industry in Savannah ranks fourth in this
group, just behind Greenville and slightly ahead of Chattanooga. Within this industry, the two
leading economies are significantly larger, with Charleston falling just short of $1 billion in
private sector activity and
Jacksonville's more than $2.6
billion. The Savannah MSA
ranks fifth in the self-
employed category just
behind Greenville and ahead
of Augusta. Within this
comparison group,
Jacksonville leads all other
MSAs, followed by
Charleston.

The technology sector in

Savannah ranks at or near the
bottom with both the private
employed and self-employed
groups. The distance between each community is striking with private employment in
Chattanooga, Charleston, Greenville and Jacksonville all supporting contributions to the
gross regional product (GRP) at well over $1.3 billion. In the self-employed group communities,
the $92 million contribution to GRP is considerably lower than group leader Jacksonville’s
$249 million GRP contribution. Together, within the technology industry, the private sector in
Savannah is lagging among most of the comparison areas. Although all these economies are
larger than Savannah's; the team accounted for this factor in the next segment by preforming
a location quotient analysis.

The location quotient (LQ) analysis examined both these scores and the current level of
employment covered by each segment of the target industry. For this part of the analysis, the
team used only Chatham County because it measures the relative value of the local industry
compared to the U.S. economy. Utilizing relative value county data makes for a better
comparison to the overall group as smaller communities are not overwhelmed by the larger
sized economies. The data covering the logistics industry based on private employment are
listed in Appendix B.
 29

As Figure 2 depicts, the privately-employed logistics industry in Chatham County is near the
top of the group in employment terms and is the leader in LQ scores. The area ranked second
in employment with around 11,500 people working in the sector. Though employment figures
are strong, Chatham ranks last in average wages paid in this group, at ~$43,000 annually. This
is below the $46,443 average for the group and well below the $51,973 paid in Chattanooga.
While this does present some benefit for attracting new businesses, it also could indicate a
drag in terms of increasing regional GDP figure because consumers with less money to spend
naturally generate slower economic growth.

While employment figures are positive, the subgroups that make up the logistics industry
could pose a problem for expanding the higher-end segment of the industry. Of the
employment in this sector as of Fourth Quarter 2019, approximately 74% are in the handling
and storage segments of the logistic industry:
● Marine Cargo Handling (NAICS 493110)
● General Warehousing and Storage (NAICS 493110)
● Couriers and Express Delivery Services (492110)
● General Freight Trucking, Long-Distance, Truckload (484121)

While these industries are integral to the overall logistics process, it is likely that companies in
these sectors of the industry are not developing higher-valued skills that would translate to a
logistics-focused tech startup.

The next sector of the logistics industry is Freight Transportation Arrangement (NAICS
488510), which includes freight forwarding. Again, the jobs in these sectors are unlikely to
encourage the development of software skills that might add value to a logistics tech startup.
 30

The private technology industry in this comparison area follows a similar pattern as discussed
in the GDP section. Findings for the technology industry analysis are listed in Figure 3.

In Chatham County, the technology industry is at the bottom of this examined group. In
addition, the entire comparison group lags behind the national proportion of employment
with the top score being in Greenville at 0.77. This community also has the second largest
average wage per worker at about $94,800. Overall, this is just below the $97,700 average
wage per worker paid in Jacksonville.

The top five industries in Chatham County during the fourth quarter of 2019 are focused on
the digital media/E-commerce/telecommunications segment of this market, the NAICS
sectors included in this part of the analysis are listed in the bullet points.

● Motion Picture and Video Production

● Wholesale Trade Agents and Brokers
● Television Broadcasting
● Wired Telecommunications Carriers
● Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)

All these industries account for approximately 65% of the employment in this sector. In
contrast, the software publishing industry ranked 21st in this group with only 13 employees. The
lone bright spots in the software development segment are that custom computer
programing service ranked 8th with 133 employees and computer systems design services that
ranked 12th with 74 employees. In order to develop a stronger technology industry in
Savannah, it will be important to add new firms in the software development space.
 31

Using the self-employment figures for both the logistic and technology industries, the team
next did a comparison between these two industries. The location quotients for both
industries are listed in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Logistics & Technology Industries Location Quotient by Self-Employment

1.60

1.40 1.38

1.20 1.16

1.00 0.93
0.87 0.84
0.82 0.82 0.82
0.80 0.72
0.66 0.64
0.60
0.45
0.40

0.20

-
Savannah, GA Augusta, GA-SC Chattanooga, TN- Charleston, SC Greenville, SC Jacksonville, FL
MSA MSA GA MSA MSA MSA MSA

Logistics Industry Technology Industry

Source: JobsEQ, Chmura Economics

In about half of our comparison group, the self-employed in the logistics industry outpaced
the technology industry, except for Chattanooga, where both industries are basically at the
same level. Within the technology industry, the three communities with the highest location
quotient are also the top performers in the private employment segment. This indicates that
development within the technology industry in Charleston, Jacksonville and Greenville is
stronger than the other areas in this analysis.
 32

Figure 5: Logistics & Technology Industries Employment by Self-employment

1,800 1,651
1,600 1,484
1,400
1,200
1,000
774
800
600 480 490 506
359 349 344 370
400 273 199
200
-
Savannah, GA Augusta, GA- Chattanooga, Charleston, SC Greenville, SC Jacksonville,
MSA SC MSA TN-GA MSA MSA MSA FL MSA

Logistics Technology
Source: Jobs EQ, Chmura Electronics

Within the self-employed group for Savannah and Augusta, the largest segment of this
market is general freight trucking, long-distance, truckload industry (NACIS 484121) which hit
42% in Savannah and 48% in Augusta. This means that developing a strong logistics tech
industry using firms currently in the self-employed category will be a limited option as the
human capital will simply not feed into the logistics tech industry. To further investigate the
available human capital, the research team next examined the occupations linked to both
industries.

OCCUPATION
The industrial side of economic development covers only one part of the development
process. It is also important to examine the skills present in the area being analyzed. To meet
this objective, the team used career clusters prepared by the Occupational Information
Network (O*NET). O*NET database serves as a clearing house for information on close to
1,000 occupations and covers the U.S. economy. The data are prepared by the North Carolina
Department of Commerce using grant funds provided by the U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment and Training Administration (O*NET 2020).

The team used Transportation, Distribution and Logistics (TDL cluster) and the Information
Technology (IT cluster) clusters to define the occupations in this segment, and employment
totals presented in this part of the analysis will vary from the previously discussed industry.
This happens because analyzing occupations looks at the skill level of the individual while the
industry analysis looks at the type of business in the community. In many organizations, it is
possible to hire many employees with different skills. For example, in a normal month of hiring
one business in the manufacturing industry might hire three employees who fit into three
different occupation categories.
 33

In the Transportation, Distribution and Logistics cluster, 79 occupations cover five career
pathways, which include: facility and mobile equipment maintenance; logistics planning and
management services; sales and service; transportation operations; and transportation
systems/infrastructure planning. Although each of these pathways are important for the
operation of the logistic industry, not all of these occupations are critical for developing a
strong logistics tech business. It is also important to have a strong Information Technology
cluster and, within this cluster, are 26 occupations and four career pathways. The career
pathways included in this cluster are: information support and services; network systems;
programming and software development; and web and digital communications. To see all the
occupations included in these career clusters, see Appendix B.

The research team performed a similar comparison analysis for the career cluster data. This
includes one minor change in which, instead of comparing all these areas to Chatham County,
the team used the Savannah MSA instead. This change was made because the City of
Savannah is drawing labor from across the local region, and, as new companies develop or
relocate to the area, each will be tapping into this labor pool.

The first cluster examined in this analysis is the TDL cluster. Results from the LQ analysis is
similar to the industry analysis discussed previously with Augusta, Charleston, and
Chattanooga all having similar levels of employment and LQ scores. The complete result of
the LQ analysis is listed in Figure 6.

In the cluster analysis, Greenville MSA has the second highest level of employment behind
Jacksonville MSA. The Savannah MSA has the strongest LQ score with the second lowest
level of employment. A closer look at the Savannah MSA is listed in Table 7.
 34

Table 7: Top Occupations in the Transportation, Distribution & Logistics Cluster

Occupations Median Career
Occupation Title Employment LQ
Code Wages Pathway
Laborers and Freight, Stock, Transportation
53-7062 5,925 $33,600 1.66
and Material Movers, Hand Operations
Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Transportation
53-3032 2,898 $44,300 1.3
Truck Drivers Operations
Industrial Truck and Tractor Transportation
53-7051 1,881 $41,500 2.45
Operators Operations
Light Truck or Delivery Transportation
53-3033 1,202 $33,700 1.04
Services Drivers Operations
Transportation
53-7064 Packers and Packagers, Hand 925 $21,300 1.14
Operations
Source: JobsEQ, Chmura Economics

Next the team examined the IT cluster within the comparison group. Within this group, both
Charleston and Jacksonville had relatively high levels of employment and LQ scores. The
complete information for this group is listed in Figure 7.

Savannah, Augusta, and Chattanooga all clustered toward the bottom of the group. The other
noteworthy finding is that none of the members of the comparison group have an LQ score
that is in line with or above the national level. This could be a drag on the development of new
IT-focused companies, which may have trouble finding the talent required for their operation.
With this limitation in mind the team next examined the IT cluster to better understand the
occupations present in this area. Table 8 lists the top five occupations for this cluster.
 35

Table 8: Top Five Occupations in the Information Technology Cluster

Occupations Median
Occupation Title Employment LQ Career Pathway
Code Wage
Software Developers, Programming and
15-1132 573 $80,600 0.51
Applications Software Development
Software Developers, Programming and
15-1133 523 $104,900 1.02
Systems Software Software Development
Computer User Information Support and
15-1151 400 $44,800 0.58
Support Specialists Services
Computer Systems Programming and
15-1121 396 $75,000 0.59
Analysts Software Development
Computer Information Support and
15-1199 315 $71,900 0.79
Occupations, All Other Services
Source: JobsEQ, Chmura Economics

The top occupation in the private employment category is software development, specifically
systems software, with an LQ score of 1.02. Out of the remaining four occupations, this was
the only one in the cluster with an LQ above 0.6. This table further illustrates the lack of
developing IT talent this is community. In order to change this dynamic, new firms will need to
hire new graduates from local higher education institutions and new IT professionals will need
to be attracted from outside the region.

Building on this information, the team next examined the self-employed segment. In most
cases within the TDL and IT clusters, the level of LQ scores within the self-employed category
is not meeting parity with the national level. The LQ scores of each of the cluster and
communities being examined in this report are depicted in Figure 9.
 36

Figure 9: Location Quotient for Self-employment Occupation TDL & IT Clusters

1.60
1.31
1.20 1.00 1.07 1.09
0.90 0.92 0.96
0.72 0.73 0.68 0.67
0.80 0.64

0.40

-
Savannah, GA Augusta, GA-SC Chattanooga, Charleston, SC Greenville, SC Jacksonville, FL
MSA MSA TN-GA MSA MSA MSA MSA

Transportation, Distribution & Logistics (CTE Cluster)

Information Technology (CTE Cluster)

Source: JobsEQ, Chmura Economics

The notable exceptions are the TDL in Savannah and Jacksonville and the IT cluster in
Charleston and Jacksonville. The other important factor to be considered in the analysis is the
level of employment. For some businesses, being self-employed is the first step to developing
a new business venture. This makes it important to not just look at LQ scores but to also
consider employment levels as well. Figure 10 depicts the employment level of these clusters.
Figure 10: Self-employed Occupations in TDL & IT Clusters

3,500 3,133
3,000
2,500
2,000 1,474
1,500 1,148
922 774 728
1,000 508
500 82 109 154 258 263
-
Savannah, GA Augusta, GA-SC Chattanooga, TN- Charleston, SC Greenville, SC Jacksonville, FL
MSA MSA GA MSA MSA MSA MSA

Transportation, Distribution & Logistics (CTE Cluster) Information Technology (CTE Cluster)

Source: JobsEQ, Chmura Economics

Except for Jacksonville, the TDL cluster in these areas averages about 1,000 self-employed
people in these occupations. Savannah sits close to the middle of this group. The types of
occupations in this group are, again, very important to the industry but may not fit with the
development of a logistics technology businesses. Table 9 lists the top five occupations linked
to the TDL cluster.
 37

Table 9: Top 5 Self-employed Occupations in Transportation, Distribution & Logistics Cluster

Occupations Median
Occupation Title Employment LQ Career Pathway
Code Wage
Heavy and Tractor-Trailer
53-3032 244 $35,900 1.95 Transportation Operations
Truck Drivers
53-3041 Taxi Drivers and Chauffeurs 243 $41,700 1.15 Transportation Operations
Automotive Service Facility and Mobile
49-3023 140 $27,000 1.07
Technicians and Mechanics Equipment Maintenance
Light Truck or Delivery
53-3033 87 $46,400 1.18 Transportation Operations
Services Drivers
Laborers and Freight, Stock,
53-7062 48 $30,200 1.41 Transportation Operations
and Material Movers, Hand
Source: JobsEQ, Chmura Economics

Within the top five occupations, four focused on moving or handling goods while the lone
outlier focused on repair and maintenance. In addition, only two occupations are above the
1.31 LQ score level for the total. The remaining three are all above the national level using LQ
scores.

Finally, the team also examined the self-employed IT cluster which was the smallest out of the
group. Table 10 displays the data for this part of the analysis.

Table 10: Top 5 Self-employed Occupations in Information Technology

Occupations Median
Occupation Title Employment LQ Career Pathway
Code Wage
15-1134 Web Developers 20 $68,900 0.8 Web Developers
Computer Systems Programming and
15-1121 13 $76,600 0.64
Analysts Software Development
Software Developers, Programming and
15-1132 9 $84,800 0.72
Applications Software Development
Computer Information Support
15-1199 9 $72,600 0.71
Occupations, All Other and Services
Computer User Information Support
15-1151 9 $46,300 0.71
Support Specialists and Services
Source: JobsEQ, Chmura Economics

Within this cluster web developers are the largest segment. This part of the occupational
analysis has revealed that there is likely no pool of unattached software developers or IT
specialist out in the labor force. Again, this emphasizes the need to recruit and develop a next
generation of software developers for entrepreneurs and relocating businesses that choose
to build their operations in the Savannah area.
 38

REGIONAL EDUCATION

The employment mix in the occupational clusters is constantly shifting and these shifts are
typically summarized as demand for employees. Demand is generated by three factors: exits,
transfers and employment growth. Workers exit their current occupations either by retiring,
returning to school, or otherwise dropping out of the labor force. In the case of transfers,
workers are leaving their current occupations for another segment of the labor force.
Employment growth happens when firms that are increasing volume can no longer be
managed by existing employees and more staff is needed to get tasks accomplished.

The Parker College of Business on the Statesboro campus of Georgia Southern University
Source: Parker College of Business
When it comes to meeting demand for employees, companies can search for three common
types of employees. First, companies can hire new employees who are entering the labor
force after completing a certificate or degree program. Next, workers can be recruited from
other communities. And, finally, local employees can “transfer” from one
occupation/employer to another. For this analysis our team is focusing on the first two types.

To investigate the new degrees being awarded in the area, the research team examined
Statesboro (Bulloch County) and Savannah (Chatham County) because both communities
have institutions that offer two-year and four-year degrees. The schools included from the
Statesboro area are Georgia Southern University and Ogeechee Technical College. Although
East Georgia College does have a satellite campus in Statesboro the college is
headquartered in Swainsboro, Georgia, which is outside of our study area. Table 11 shows the
degrees issued using CIP Code that could be most beneficial to the Transportation,
Distribution and Logistics (TDL cluster) and the Information Technology (IT cluster).
 39

Table 11: Degrees Awarded in Statesboro, as of the 2017-2018 academic year

CIP Certificate Certificate Post-
Employment Associate's Bachelor's Master's
Code < 1 Yr 2+ but < 4 Yr Bacc
Transportation, Distribution and Logistics
Logistics, Materials, and
52.0203 0 0 0 169 0 0
Supply Chain Management

Business Administration and

52.0201 23 21 20 168 0 118
Management, General

Information Technology
11.0401 Information Science/Studies 0 0 0 113 0 0

Computer and Information

11.0101 0 0 0 78 0 0
Sciences, General
Management Information
52.1201 0 0 0 46 0 0
Systems, General
Network and System
11.1001 47 7 11 0 0 0
Administration/Administrator

Electrical and Electronics

14.1001 0 0 0 37 0 0
Engineering
Engineering Technologies and
15.9999 Engineering-Related Fields, 0 0 0 0 0 41
Other
Data Processing and Data
11.0301 Processing 8 3 8 0 0 0
Technology/Technician
Information Resources
52.1206 0 0 0 0 5 0
Management

11.0701 Computer Science 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: JobsEQ, Chmura Economics

It is likely that degrees earned in Statesboro at Georgia Southern University will be used in
other communities. Based on pre-consolidation alumni residency data, about 81% of Georgia
Southern alumni live in Georgia. From this total, only 12% of all alumni live in the Savannah
MSA and 35% currently live in the Atlanta MSA. Using this information, it is very likely that
some of the 337 bachelor’s degrees awarded in business administration and logistics and the
274 linked to information technology will be seeking employment outside of the Savannah
area. It is unclear how many of these new professionals would consider becoming part of the
Savannah area.
 40

Within Chatham County are several institutions of higher learning. These institutions include
state-funded schools including Georgia Southern University-Armstrong Campus (formerly
Armstrong State University), Savannah State University and Savannah Technical College, as
well as private schools that include Savannah College of Art and Design and South University.
The data displayed in Table 12 are based on market conditions pre-consolidation between
Georgia Southern University and Armstrong State University. Due to the changes that have
taken place at Georgia Southern University since consolidation, it is possible that the mix of
degrees awarded has changed in Chatham County.

Table 12: Degrees Awarded in Savannah, as of the 2017-2018 academic year

Certificate Certificate Certificate 2+

CIP Code Employment Associate's Bachelor's Master's
< 1 Yr < 2 Yr but < 4 Yr
Transportation, Distribution and Logistics
Business Administration and
52.0201 28 30 47 0 188 52
Management, General
Transportation and Materials
49.999 1 0 0 0 0 0
Moving, Other
Information Technology
Digital Communication and
9.0702 4 0 0 0 272 52
Media/Multimedia
11.0401 Information Science/Studies 0 0 2 0 69 10
Information Technology Project
11.1005 0 0 0 0 0 47
Management
Electrical, Electronic and
15.0303 Communications Engineering 0 0 7 0 14 0
Technology/Technician
Data Processing and Data
11.0301 3 0 13 2 0 0
Processing Technology/Technician
Drafting and Design
15.1301 0 8 5 0 0 0
Technology/Technician, General
15.0612 Industrial Technology/Technician 0 0 9 0 0 0
International
52.1101 0 0 0 0 9 0
Business/Trade/Commerce
CAD/CADD Drafting and/or Design
15.1302 8 0 0 0 0 0
Technology/Technician
Computer Engineering
15.1201 0 0 0 0 7 0
Technology/Technician
Manufacturing Engineering
15.0613 5 0 0 0 0 0
Technology/Technician
Environmental Engineering
15.0507 Technology/Environmental 0 4 0 0 0 0
Technology
Computer and Information
11.0101 0 0 1 0 0 0
Sciences, General
Source: JobsEQ, Chmura Economics
 41

During the 2017–2018 academic year, Savannah area institutions awarded 188 bachelor’s
degrees in TDL fields. When digital media is included, 371 bachelor’s degrees were awarded in
IT related fields. As the community works to build a workforce for the new businesses that
could locate in Savannah, between Statesboro and Savannah institutions of higher learning is
a base on which to build.

It is also important to note that not all talent will come from this area or these institutions.
Table 13 provides a breakdown of the top 15 communities that Savannah could use to attract
talent from in the TDL cluster.

Table 13: Transportations, Distribution & Logistics Job Talent Locator

Avg Ann Cost of Median
Region Employment
Wages Living Index House Value
1 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta, GA MSA 288,274 $40,700 95-100 $212,240

2 Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro, TN MSA 100,388 $38,100 95-100 $231,681

3 Jacksonville, FL MSA 71,492 $39,800 90-95 $193,871

4 Birmingham-Hoover, AL MSA 43,074 $37,300 <90 $159,780

5 Greenville-Anderson, SC MSA 35,755 $35,600 90-95 $153,007

6 Knoxville, TN MSA 34,040 $36,900 <90 $163,618

7 Columbia, SC MSA 30,368 $35,800 90-95 $148,075

8 Charleston-North Charleston, SC MSA 30,333 $39,800 95-100 $238,306

9 Chattanooga, TN-GA MSA 27,562 $36,400 95-100 $154,886

10 Savannah, GA MSA 21,765 $41,700 <90 $182,929

11 Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC MSA 19,433 $35,300 90-95 $140,447

12 Spartanburg, SC MSA 16,782 $36,800 90-95 $133,700

13 Huntsville, AL MSA 16,398 $39,700 90-95 $174,942

14 Asheville, NC MSA 15,001 $35,800 100-105 $208,253

15 Montgomery, AL MSA 14,292 $34,100 90-95 $136,703

Source: JobsEQ, Chmura Economics

The Savannah area already has the highest average wages in this cluster. It also has a cost of
living that is one of the lowest in the listed communities. Together this makes it possible that
some companies in this area might benefit from recruiting employees from these areas.
 42

In contrast, the IT cluster is somewhat less positive for the Savannah area. Table 14 displays
the top 15 communities that Savannah employers could recruit new talent from for the IT
cluster.

Table 14: Information Technology Job Talent Locator

Median
Avg Ann Cost of
Region Employment House
Wages Living Index
Value
1 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta, GA MSA 107,905 $91,400 95-100 $212,240
2 Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro, TN MSA 24,792 $78,400 95-100 $231,681
3 Jacksonville, FL MSA 18,334 $77,900 90-95 $193,871
4 Huntsville, AL MSA 11,644 $90,500 90-95 $174,942
5 Birmingham-Hoover, AL MSA 11,309 $80,700 <90 $159,780
6 Charleston-North Charleston, SC MSA 9,050 $78,800 95-100 $238,306
7 Greenville-Anderson, SC MSA 8,322 $72,700 90-95 $153,007
8 Columbia, SC MSA 8,318 $72,700 90-95 $148,075
9 Knoxville, TN MSA 7,834 $72,100 <90 $163,618
10 Tallahassee, FL MSA 4,685 $65,900 95-100 $172,067
11 Chattanooga, TN-GA MSA 4,445 $77,800 95-100 $154,886
12 Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC MSA 3,972 $73,900 90-95 $140,447
13 Columbus, GA-AL MSA 3,720 $83,000 90-95 $141,292
14 Savannah, GA MSA 3,557 $77,300 <90 $182,929
15 Montgomery, AL MSA 3,434 $78,900 90-95 $136,703
Source: JobsEQ, Chmura Economics

The median wages for this group are $77,900, which is just above Savannah’s $77,300 annual
average wage. The wage is in the lower segment of this group while the home values in
Savannah are above the $163,618 median for the group. Overall, Savannah does have some
advantages for IT talent looking to relocate. It should also be noted that the current average
annual wages paid in Savanah are being outpaced by other lower cost areas including
Birmingham, Columbus, and Huntsville. Within the comparison group used in the economic
overview section, Savannah ranks near the middle, just ahead of Augusta and Greenville while
Savannah is just behind Chattanooga, Jacksonville, and Charleston in terms of wages.
 43

LOGISTICS TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION: EXPERT PERSPECTIVES

To both corroborate the findings of the analyses and assessments of the industry reports and
secondary data of the conducted analyses and assessments utilized in this study, as well as to
get a contextual perspective on logistics technology and innovation specific to the Savannah
area, a series of 61 interviews were conducted with logistics technology experts between
March 3, 2020, and May 26, 2020. To facilitate insights that were relevant, the research team
ensured that the sampling frame comprised individuals in functions and roles that directly
engage in logistics technology and innovation investment, use, development, advancement
and research.

For the study, experts were

assigned to any of three
groups of interest—general
logistics technology-related
experts, Savannah area-
specific logistics technology-
related experts, and logistics
and supply chain technology
entrepreneurs. The logistics
technology-related expert
group comprised senior level
executives, based across the
geographic United States, that
were operating, technology,
professional service or
investment professionals in A container ship heads up the Savannah River toward the port
Source: pixabay.com
the areas of logistics or
logistics and supply chain technology. Likewise, the Savannah area-specific experts were also
senior level executives in various organization types with a logistics or logistics and supply
chain technology-related focus, based in Savannah, Georgia, and more specifically, based
within the area designated for the SLTIC, an area comprising the Chatham, Bryan, Liberty,
Effingham and Bulloch counties. The third group of logistics technology-related experts was
comprised of the founders and executives of logistics and supply chain technology
companies. The logistics technology-related expert groups were grouped as mentioned to
facilitate capturing potentially unique or differing perspectives between the groups. Further,
certain questions were only applicable within specific groups.

The interview protocol was designed to garner expert perspectives on key elements of
logistics technology and innovation development and market dynamics. As such, the interview
guide comprised five segments. The first segment comprised open-ended and rating-based
questions that were directed to members across all expert groups, aimed at determining
perspectives on (i) the economic and social phenomena that most influence technological
 44

advancements in logistics; (ii) the logistics technologies deemed to, both within the next five
years and post the next five years, most impact logistics operations; and (iii) the inhibitors and
facilitators of successful logistics technology development and diffusion to markets. The
second segment, also directed to members of all expert groups, comprised a series of
questions aimed at getting perspectives on the roles played and levels of contribution
delivered by various organization types during the logistics technology development cycle
and diffusion to markets process. The third segment of the interview guide, discussed only
with Savannah-area experts, sought to gather (i) perspectives on the Savannah area as
facilitator of logistics technology entrepreneurial activity; (ii) perceptions regarding the
willingness of corporations and subject matter experts in the Savannah area to support
logistics technology development and diffusion to markets; and (iii) perspectives on factors
that make, or can make, the Savannah area a location of choice for logistics technology
development and entrepreneurial activity.

The fourth segment of the interview, discussed solely with logistics and supply chain
technology entrepreneurs, sought to determine (i) the factors that influence location
decision-making; (ii) preferences regarding geographic-based economic incentives, and (iii)
perceptions on the Savannah area being developed into a logistics technology innovation
hub. Interview responses were analyzed using text and statistical analysis software packages.
For a detailed review of the interview guide reference Appendix C.

The logistics technology experts that participated in the study were identified as being
leading professionals in the area of logistics and supply chain technology by leadership of
various supply chain, technology, and investment industry associations and interest groups;
corporate enterprises; and state and local government agencies. The identified experts were
contacted by the respective leader who recommended them; were provided information on
the study, its purpose and the objectives of the interview; were provided the contact
information of the research team, and then were instructed to contact the research team
directly if interested in participating in the study. Interested experts then contacted the
research team expressing their interest, and willingness to participate, in the study. The
resulting study sample comprised 61 logistics technology experts, 23 of whom were general
logistics technology experts, 18 were Savannah area-specific logistics technology experts, and
20 were logistics and supply chain technology entrepreneurs.
A broad set of industries were represented within the sample. Industries and organization
types represented included technology incubators, third party logistics services, port terminal
operations, airlines, online retailing, economic development, education, information
technology, Internet-based software, manufacturing, maritime ports, professional services and
management consulting, retailing, software development and computing services, supply
chain services, public sector transportation and infrastructure, investment banking, ventures
capital and angel investing.

The titles experts participating in the interviews included associate director, board member,
chief executive officer, chair, chief innovation officer, chief operation officer, corporate
 45

trainer, chief technology officer, co-founder, dean, director, executive vice president, general
manager, head of Internet of things, human resource manager, president, regional vice
president, vice chair, senior business broker, senior director, senior vice president, site
director, start-up coach and vice president. The titles of study participants indicated a sample
comprised of high-level decision makers who were involved in strategic-level decision making
at their respective organizations. See Appendix C for details on the study interview sample.

Interview Findings

The findings of the interview were synthesized using two approaches. The first approach
collected, analyzed, and reported responses to interview questions in the sequential manner
in which the interviews proceeded. The second approach involved analyzing the findings
generated from the first approach and identifying any emergent or frequently occurring
themes. The identification emergent themes facilitated bringing to focus those dynamics and
issues that serve to either accentuate the Savannah area’s preparedness to lead logistics
technology and innovation activity, or those that require addressing to mitigate any barriers
to such preparedness.

Interview Responses

Utilizing the aforementioned first approach, the responses for questions that constituted the
first four segments of the interview guide (See Appendix C) were collected. Each participant
was asked questions in the identical sequence; the order in which questions were asked did
not vary among interviewees.

Market and Social Factors Influencing Logistics Technology Development and Diffusion

In order to identify market and social factors that should be studied when developing the
strategic approach of the SLTIC and the LTIC, researchers sought to determine which factors
experts thought to be most important with the understanding that these can then be
considered in developing SLTIC and LTIC-related strategy.

Conclusively, interviewees indicated that a historically and continuously significant spurt in

logistics technology development and innovation and various market-driven factors
contribute this phenomenon. Among the frequently mentioned factors were the increased
supply chain complexity; growth in e-commerce and online transactions; increases in the
volumes of data collected and access to it, driven by reduced computing and technology
costs; and the emergence of the sharing economy characterized by increases in peer-to-peer
access to goods and services, facilitated by community-based online platforms. Dynamics
related to labor and human capital markets were also frequently mentioned. Disparities in skill
levels across the workforce were indicated as a driver of a shortage of talent, one that has led
to the increased adoption of technologies to “fill the gap.” Additionally, as added by a retail
industry executive, “People are more educated and want to do less manual labor, so
 46

technology has to be utilized to maintain and gain efficiencies.” A distribution expert

attributed this dynamic to inducing a “tightness” in pockets of the logistics labor market,
resulting in increased worker turnover rates.

Compounding the aforementioned concerns, an inventory optimization software company

executive indicated, “Work and immigration regulation-related challenges have led to
significant investments in automation and robotic process automation by firms.” An executive
that leads a high-growth unit for a large logistics services provider expanded on that premise
by indicating that, “There is a challenging network of regulations that have incentivized
companies to utilize a contracted workforce versus have employees.” A supply chain software
executive commented that, “As the costs for transactions between firms become reduced, the
optimal size of the firm is decreasing over time, and technology is enabling the specialization
of work through digital platforms.” As a result of the aforementioned market dynamics,
“Companies want something but are not quite sure exactly what they want when it comes to
investing in logistics technology” commented a management consulting industry expert; “The
need to ensure maintained competitive advantage or relevance is strong,” added an executive
who leads innovation at a large retailer. The need for competitive advantage and market
relevance was reiterated when the majority of respondents highlighted that changing
consumer behaviors and demand have required investments in technologies that automate
and predict.

The consensus across interviewees was that the identified market factors are driving the need
for firms to improve operating efficiencies by investing in operating capabilities, capabilities
often indexed to increased technological competence. Technological capabilities identified as
being of critical importance to logistics operations and processes included supply chain end-
to-end visibility; the ability to predict human behavior or asset conditions across supply
chains; the ability to access and analyze large sets of data; the ability to secure both
information and products as they flow through supply chains; the ability to assess biosecurity
across supply chains; the improved speed and accuracy with which information flows across
supply chains; and the traceability of products and information flowing across supply chains.
The development of these capabilities, as noted by interviewees, is driving significant
investments in logistics and supply chain technologies by firms.

Various social factors were identified as being drivers of increased logistics technology
development and innovation. Several respondents articulated the existence of firm-level
social behavior that are mimetic in nature, where firms may be investing in logistics
technology simply because their organizational peers are doing so. Frequently cited as having
a combined effect, an increase in working remotely, the advent of the gig economy, and the
now increased propensity to practice social distancing; these were projected to induce
increased investments in logistics technology by firms seeking to capture share in growing e-
commerce, telecommuting, and sharing economy markets. It was highlighted that some of
these social factors also influence, because of preferences at the consumer level, increased
investments in logistics technologies that facilitate visibility, traceability, and security across
 47

supply chains. Table 15 summarizes the market and social trends that logistics technology
experts indicated were the trends that are driving increased investment in logistics
technology and innovation.

Table 15: Trends Influencing Increased Investment in Logistics Technology and Innovation
Trend
Trends Logistics Technology Implications
Category
Increased Supply Chain
Complexity To adequately address these trends and remain
competitive and relevant, firms are investing in
Growth in e-commerce and Online
developing technology-enabling capabilities.
Transactions
Increased investment in technology-enabled
Market Increased Availability of Data logistics capabilities is growing. These
capabilities include supply chain end-to-end
Growth in the Sharing Economy visibility, predictability, analytics, security,
Labor Market Dynamics biosecurity, speed, accuracy, and traceability.

Firm Mimetic Behavior To adequately address these trends and remain

competitive and relevant, firms are investing in
Remote Work e-commerce-, telecommuting- and sharing
economy technology-enabling capabilities.
Social Gig Economy
Increased investment in technology-enabled
Social Distancing logistics capabilities is growing. These
capabilities include supply chain end-to-end
Online Shopping visibility, predictability and security.
Summation of interview responses collected by CBAER

CURRENT AND FUTURE LOGISTICS TECHNOLOGIES

In an effort to identify those logistics technologies and innovations that experts perceive to
be most impactful to logistics and supply chain operations, first, within the next five year
period, and, second, beyond it, experts were asked to identify the logistics technologies they
perceived will be most impactful within the demarcated timeframes. These timeframes were
considered in order to determine those technologies that are more imminent versus those
whose impact are projected to be chronologically further out. Determining the perceived
chronological impact of these technologies can serve to inform decision makers as to
potential priorities when strategizing and planning around SLTIC and LTIC activities and
programming. It is worth noting that, in assessing interviewee responses, logistics
technologies were categorized as being either sustaining or disruptive. Sustaining
technologies are those that are improvements to already existing technologies, whereas
disruptive technologies are those involving reinvented or invented innovations and
technologies.
 48

Sustainable technologies identified as being most impactful within the next five years include
alternative fuel and propulsion technologies; data analytics; demand planning software;
electronic logging devices (ELDs) in trucking; forecasting software; freight brokerage
technologies; optimization technologies that improve supply chain, network, transportation
and inventory optimization; outbound transportation, distribution and parcel delivery
technologies; people management and workforce optimization technologies; sales operations
and planning (S&OP) software; transportation management systems (TMS); visibility and
tracking technologies; warehousing management systems (WMS); and yard management
systems (YMS). Sustainable technologies projected by interviewees to be the most impactful
to logistics processes and operations beyond the
next five years include forecasting and demand
planning software solutions that plan on a
regional scale to facilitate global supply chain
dynamics; inbound and outbound transportation
optimization software; and equipment and capital
asset tracking technologies.

Logistics technology experts identified disruptive

technologies and innovations they perceived to
be most impactful to logistics operations and
processes within the next five years to include automation; artificial intelligence; connected
vehicles; data and predictive analytics; digital freight matching; drone technologies; drone-
based yard management technologies; drone inventory verification technologies; human
assistance technologies in warehouses; human scanning technologies in warehouses; Internet
of things technologies; machine learning; robotic process automation; vehicle electrification;
unmanned material handling equipment technologies; and warehouse associate mobile device
safety technologies. With some overlap between both time periods of interest, experts
proceeded to identify those disruptive technologies they project will emerge as being most
impactful to logistics operations and processes beyond the next five years.

These technologies included additive manufacturing; advanced drone technologies; advanced

robotics; automated warehousing, particularly applied to inventory audits; the application of
artificial intelligence and machine learning to establish “self-driving” supply chains; advanced
applications of Internet of things, building off of advances in radio frequency identification
(RFID) technologies; connected vehicle technologies; human assistance and equipment
operations technologies; increased penetration of robotics; increased penetration of digital
freight matching; increased penetration of alternative fuel technologies and electrification;
predictive buying technologies, due to advances in forecasting and inventory optimization
technologies; machine learning-enabled analytics; simulation and war gaming technologies,
particularly as it applies to planning global supply chains as complexity increases; and yard
imaging technologies. While less conclusive on time-to-impact, the consensus among
interviewees was that both blockchain and autonomous vehicle technologies bear significant
implications to logistics operations and processes.
 49

The inability of expert interviewees to be conclusive on time-to-impact was based on lesser

degrees of certainty around the regulatory effects on the diffusion and adoption rates of
these technologies; and trust, between supply chain partners in the case of block chain
technology, and of technology in the case of autonomous vehicle technology. It is important
to note that between the categories of sustainable versus disruptive, and between the two
time periods of interests, specific technologies appear in more than one category. Upon
inquiry, experts noted that this is inevitable as companies are along different stages of the
continuum of logistics technology investment and the application of these technologies
across their operations. Table 16 summarizes the logistics technologies that experts indicated
are most impactful to logistics operations and processes over the time periods of interest in
the study.

Table 16: Most Impactful sustainable and Disruptive Logistics Technologies by Time Frame

Within 5 Years Beyond the Next 5 Years

Alternative fuel and propulsion technologies; data
analytics; demand planning software; electronic
logging devices (ELDs) in trucking; forecasting
software; freight brokerage technologies;
optimization technologies that improve supply chain,
Forecasting and demand planning software solutions
network, transportation and inventory optimization;
Sustaining that plan on a regional scale to facilitate global supply
outbound transportation, distribution and parcel
Logistics chain dynamics, inbound and outbound transportation
delivery technologies; people management and
Technologies optimization software, and equipment and capital
workforce optimization technologies; sales
asset tracking technologies
operations and planning (S&OP) software;
transportation management systems (TMS); visibility
and tracking technologies; warehousing
management systems (WMS) and yard management
systems (YMS)
Additive manufacturing; advanced drone
technologies; advanced robotics; automated
warehousing, particularly applied to inventory audits;
autonomous vehicle technologies; the application of
Automation, artificial intelligence; connected
artificial intelligence and machine learning to establish
vehicles; data and predictive analytics; digital freight
“self-driving” supply chains; advanced applications of
matching; drone technologies; drone-based yard
Internet of things, building off of advances in radio
management technologies; drone inventory
frequency identification (RFID) technologies; block
verification technologies; human assistance
Disruptive chain technologies; connected vehicle technologies;
technologies in warehouses; human scanning
Logistics human and equipment operations technologies;
technologies in warehouses; Internet of things
Technologies increased penetration of robotics; increased
technologies; machine learning; robotic process
penetration of digital freight matching; increased
automation; vehicle electrification, unmanned
penetration of alternative fuel technologies and
material handling equipment technologies and
electrification; predictive buying technologies, due to
warehouse associate mobile device safety
advances in forecasting and inventory optimization
technologies
technologies; machine learning-enabled analytics;
simulation and war gaming technologies, particularly
as it applies to planning as global supply chain
complexity increases, and yard imaging technologies
Summation of interview responses collected by CBAER
 50

OPPORTUNITIES, FACILITATORS AND BARRIERS IN LOGISTICS TECHNOLOGY

With the objective of identifying potential opportunities or use cases for which logistics
technologies and innovations can be leveraged to mitigate current logistics operations or
process challenges, expert stakeholders were asked to describe current challenges for which
solutions do not exist or for which already existing solutions can be improved upon. These
responses can be used to inform SLTIC and LTIC programming strategy. The most prevalent
issue surrounded data and its use from various perspectives. First, respondents indicated that
the integration of data derived from multiple systems is a significant issue. These multiple
systems can be intra-firm, in which systems between functions or even processes within a
single function are disparate and, as a result, information that can be aggregated and
synthesized across them to facilitate more comprehensive insights is not generally available
due to data integration constraints. The same issue was articulated to manifest itself in an
inter-firm context, in which supply chain partners, or peer organizations, that can integrate
and share data to garner some level of mutual benefit, are unable to do so due to data
integration constraints. A chief operating officer of a large enterprise solutions provider said:
Supply chains consist of so many components and are very complex, as such, gaps
often exist in systems and information consistency between both the internal functions
of a firm, and across supply chain partners, where systems are often designed for
processes that are company specific.
As the CEO suggests, due to the multiple, stand-alone systems that can comprise a lengthy
supply chain, integrating the data and processes from those components can be challenging.
Another interviewee further substantiated the issue when indicating that “Technology and
data integration capabilities are a dire need. Each supply chain partner has data, but that data
is [sic] often generated in disparate operating systems.” A seasoned manufacturing executive
went on to say, “Companies need to learn how to share, but data accuracy and quality control
between firms is another significant issue.”

The vice president of a supply chain services company identified yet another aspect of the
data integration issue when indicating that “Many logistics decisions are made from data that
is collected external to a firms’ enterprise systems that is then analyzed manually,” indicating
that, even if systems were to be integrated, the comprehensiveness of the constituent data
can be questionable. Respondents indicated that significant opportunities awaited those
entrepreneurs who developed solutions based on technologies that harnessed data,
integrated it, and made it accessible in a usable form. Further, several experts indicated the
growing demand for applications that connect with existing legacy systems because many
firms have significant investments in these systems and are hesitant to overhaul them unless
necessary.

This premise was supported by the chief executive officer of a technology incubator who
indicated, “Significant opportunities present themselves if systems integration can be offered
as a subscription service.” “Third party logistics service providers are in a position to capitalize
on systems integration needs,” added an enterprise solutions executive; “…the challenge,
 51

however, lies in the fact that procedures are so disparate across their customer base that
there ends up being insufficient market mass to develop highly scalable solutions, leaving
systems integration opportunities for niche experts,” the executive concluded. Other
identified data-centric opportunities included data analytics-as-a-service (DaaS) and, as
mentioned by a government executive, “We are in need of anonymization technology services
so we can assure customers that data we are collecting and analyzing would not have
personal identifiers.”

The participants identified various other logistics technology needs that can be assessed and
pursued by aspiring logistics and supply chain technology entrepreneurs engaging in SLTIC
and LTIC activities. These included leveraging augmented reality in warehousing and yard
management; improving sensor technologies; advancing smart contract technologies;
developing human capital solutions aimed at workforce optimization; warehouse workforce
“on-demand” technology solutions; employee verification technologies and facilitating
artificial intelligence at scale. Further opportunities to advance sustaining logistics
technologies were also suggested including improved freight brokerage process automation,
improved transportation network optimization, improved inventory optimization software, and
advanced upstream transportation mode optimization solutions.

It is worth noting that interviewees did, however, indicate that, while the aforementioned
opportunities imply a landscape rife with solution-demanding use cases, various factors can
either propel or prohibit entrepreneurial initiatives specific to logistics technology. Experts
were asked to identify both inhibiting and facilitating factors of successful logistics
technology development and diffusion to markets. Inhibiting factors included challenges with
corporate customers finding developed solutions credible; challenges about change
management as firm employees are required to adapt new technologies; issues regarding
access to capital; regulatory constraints; and the need for support from corporate customers
during solutions development. Lack of capital availability and access to it, as with startups in
any industry or functional niche, was identified as a factor that can adversely affect logistics
technology development and
diffusion to markets. Another
concern highlighted the
“Often, because large corporations have
change in management
dynamics that occur when already gained scale and have internally-
companies implement new developed logistics technology solutions,
technologies. smaller stand-alone startups have difficulties
landing larger clients.”
Often, some proportion of a – CEO of large logistics service company
corporation’s workforce is
either intrinsically averse to the
rates of change associated
with new technology implementation or require significant training on the new technology
systems due to a lack of the base competencies required to engage with new technology
 52

systems and interfaces. This dynamic often results in firms being very cognizant of changes to
technologies and systems—a factor that can deter the adoption of newly developed logistics
solutions. Another noted detractor was the issue around the lack of systems integration within
and between firms. Interviewees articulated that this lack of integration of TMSs, WMSs and
other systems across partner networks affected both the access to data on which solutions
can be built, as well as the ability of developer teams to gain comprehensive insights on the
characteristics of the problems they can solve, adversely impacting the development of
comprehensive technology solutions. This dynamic impacts the scalability of developed
solutions, both within firms and across specific industries. Related, several interviewees
highlighted that the competitive nature of the industry tends to manifest itself in a reluctance
of firms to share data, due to trust issues. As noted by a senior retail supply chain executive
“The best algorithms in the world won’t work if there isn’t access to reliable and high-quality
data.”

Another identified inhibitor surrounded the difficulties associated with selling newly
developed solutions to established large enterprises, in which technological scale exists.
Large corporations often have in-house technology development teams and have invested in
already-existing systems. According to the chief executive officer of a large logistics services
company:
The environment incentivizes companies to aim to keep things proprietary, in part to
attain returns on investments in legacy systems and to also ensure you maintain a
competitive edge. Often, because large corporations have already gained scale and
have internally-developed logistics technology solutions, smaller stand-alone startups
have difficulties landing larger clients.
This results in them “having to chase several small companies in the absence of a customer
large enough to support the scaling of the developed solutions” continued the logistics
outsourcing expert.

This leads to yet another identified inhibitor, the ability of entrepreneurs to convey the value
of their developed solution to corporations in a way the business cases demarcates a clear
return on investment for customers. The chief executive of a technology incubator said:
The industry is so fragmented, and systems and processes so disparate, that
entrepreneurs have to change many minds. An example is in developed technological
solutions for the trucking industry where there are thousands of providers because
capacity is in the tail of the very long tailed industry.
The chair of a venture investment group added, “the diffusiveness of markets are an issue
with respect to logistics and supply chain technologies. There is a very long tail in this space
and gaps continue to exist.” Resultantly is potential for industry push back, manifested in a
cautionary rate of adoption of certain developed logistics technology solutions.

As indicated by a senior level expert at a management consulting firm, “Large logistics service
providers may be hesitant to support and adopt logistics technologies that bear the potential
 53

to disrupt or cannibalize existing profit streams generated from specific business lines, until it
is absolutely necessary for them to do so.” Thus, the lack of a large corporation serving as a
sponsor and partner of a small startup, through the technology development cycle, was
perceived to be an inhibitor to the development and diffusion of logistics technologies. “This
allows for entrepreneurs to determine which problems, if solved, stand to drive the most
value for customers” indicated a vice president of a logistics service provider that is
extensively involved in corporate venturing activities.

The issue of logistics

technology entrepreneurs
“The caliber and capacity of people is key in knowing the “correct problems
this business. The education and training to solve” was identified as a
levels of the workforce dictate the types of major inhibitor to the
technologies we consider adopting.” development and diffusion of
technologies in the space. Due
-Senior executive in manufacturing sector
to corporations not being
readily able to accurately
determine the costs or benefits
associated with the technologies and solutions they are presented with by startups, the ability
of entrepreneurs to accurately articulate the problems their solutions solve, and to
demonstrate a deep knowledge of the processes and dynamics associated with those
problems, is key. “That knowledge, however, often does not exist in the absence of a close
working relationship with a large reputable corporate partner, which lends credibility to any
developed solution,” indicated an executive involved in venture capital investing in logistics
and supply chain technology startups.

Two other factors were mentioned by participants as also having significant adverse effects
on the development and diffusion of logistics technology. These factors were access to
software and computer engineers and the constraining effect of regulations. The founder of a
logistics asset sharing platform indicated that “It is tough to locate and attract the
engineering and technical talent needed. It is essential to develop partnerships with
universities to address this challenge.” Regarding regulation, an angel investor who
participated in the interviews indicated, “The technology is ahead of regulations, and this can
present an issue.” The founder of a supply chain visibility-enhancing technology startup
added, “There are instances where there are inconsistencies between regulations at different
levels of government, sometimes affecting the ability to access data or effectively transform
and generate value for customers.”

Regarding drivers of success, interviewees identified factors that facilitate the successful
development and diffusion of logistics technology. A frequently occurring, and expected,
response was the access to funding from angel investors, venture capital firms, or corporate
venture units. Also mentioned was the fact that the advent of cloud computing and
accessibility to cloud platforms has made it easier to not only get end-users involved in the
 54

development cycle, by providing feedback during applications development, but also

facilitated lower investment level requirements with no need to spend on hardware and
licensing. “Companies are more open to testing technologies that are available on a
subscription basis,” indicated the chief innovation officer at a retail chain.

Access to high quality talent was frequently mentioned as well. “The caliber and capacity of
people is key in this business. The education and training levels of the workforce dictate the
types of technologies we consider adopting” explained a senior executive in the
manufacturing sector. “The availability and access to data scientists really facilitates [sic]
harnessing the value of data” added a retail distribution executive. Several participants also
indicated that academic experts on university faculties have been very instrumental in
logistics technology development and diffusion to markets by applying their knowledge of
markets or operations in the development of solutions. The buy-in of employees and the
support of a good technology incubator were also cited as factors that drive success for
logistics technology startups.

Conclusively, interviewees noted that the involvement of corporations was a necessary

antecedent of success. A primary reason for this was that corporations are the eventual
customers of the startups, and, as such, creating solutions along with them adds significant
customer value, as solutions to highly relevant problems are developed. As indicated by a
management consultant who has advised various clients on logistics technology
implementation, “Engineers build the software, but they don’t operate it,” highlighting the
need for software engineers to work closely with corporations and have input from subject
matter experts. Working in partnership with corporations was also noted to engender
significant amounts of credibility with potential customers, as entrepreneurs can then clearly
articulate provable business and use cases. “Working with corporations allows for the testing
of ideas and provides unmatched support for entrepreneurs. It allows them to show others
that they understand the logistics industry or processes, and can partner to solve solutions,”
explained a senior expert at a technology incubator.

The location of corporate partners was also identified as being important. The founder of a
logistics asset tracking start-up stated, “It is key to have early stage corporate adopters in
close proximity to the startup.” An enterprise solutions executive added, “These partnerships
allow startups to identify niches they can focus on and to uniquely customize solutions based
on an in depth knowledge of that niche.” Table 17 summarizes the logistics technologies that
expert stakeholders indicated are most impactful to logistics operations and processes over
the time periods of interest in the study.
 55

Table 17: Factors That Support or Inhibit Technology Development and Diffusion to Markets

Propelling Factors Prohibiting Factors

Adequate Access to Funding and Capital
Advances in Cloud Platform Services
Access to High Caliber Talent
Employee Buy-In to Technology Adoption
Corporate Sponsorship
Expert Academics
Summation of interview responses collected by CBAER
Lack of Access to Capital
Lack of Corporate Support
Employee Reluctance to Technological Change
Regulatory Constraints
Intra- and Inter-Firm Systems Incompatibility
Lack of Access to Technical Talent

PARTNERING ORGANIZATION TYPES FOR LOGISTICS TECHNOLOGY

With the objective of gaining insights into the perceived contribution of various organization
types to logistics technology development and diffusion to markets, interviewees were first
asked to identify the organization types that they believe to be essential to the success of
logistics technology development and diffusion to markets. They were then asked to identify
which types of organizations should be involved in the operation of an SLTIC and which
operating structure they believe would lend itself to most effective operation. Interviewees
were then asked to rate, on a scale from 1 to 10 (See Appendix C) various types of
organizations, based on what they perceived to be the importance each has in the developing,
advancing, and diffusing logistics technologies to markets. Interviewees then provided their
perspectives on corporations and corporate venturing, universities, and on K through 12
education institutions, and the respective roles in logistics technology advancement. Experts
then concluded by sharing their perspectives on education programming.

Regarding essential partners in logistics technology development and the effective operating
structure for the SLTIC, interviewees identified critically important stakeholders to be large
corporations, university systems, state and local government agencies, and investors in the
form of angel investors and venture capital firms. Specific to Savannah, interviews mentioned
the following organizations as being key to any SLTIC and LTIC activities: Georgia Ports, the
most frequently cited stakeholder by interviewees; Norfolk Southern; CSX; Georgia Power;
Gulfstream; Kia; large third party logistics service providers; distribution centers; warehouses;
and manufacturers in Savannah; the University System of Georgia, with specific mention of
Georgia Institute Technology, Georgia Southern University, Savannah Technical College and
Ogeechee Technical College; the Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD); and the
economic development authorities within the designated corridor areas.

Interviewees then shared their perspectives on the ideal operating structure for the SLTIC, in
terms of the organizations that should assume leadership roles within the initiative, and how
strategic and operating decision-making authority should be distributed across those
 56

organizations. Structurally, a majority of interviewees communicated that the ideal operating

structure will be that of an independent entity that leads through managing and coordinating
the resources and activities of all involved partners. Several experts mentioned that a 501(c)3
is the best vehicle through which the SLTIC should be operated. Conclusively, interviewees
indicated that corporations will need to play a central role in any such initiative. A vice-chair of
a U.S-based international professional services firms said:
Commercial enterprises get involved in these initiatives to make money; it’s not about
perception; if money is going to be committed, commercial enterprises will need to
assume a central role in the operation of an SLTIC. The structure needs to reflect a
true partnership between academia, industry and local government with significant
guidance coming from the commercial sector.
The chief executive of a technology research park that has previously engaged in the
development of innovation hubs explained, “Corporations command the lion’s share of the
technology market; it is imperative to find ways to get corporations involved. Successful
models typical have 70% corporate and 30% government and university ownership
respectively.”

Various interviewees
highlighted what they “The structure needs to reflect a true
believed to be the importance
partnership between academia, industry and
of involving major companies
and organizations of repute local government, with significant guidance
with strong branding, as a coming from the commercial sector.”
means incentivizing others to – Vice chairman of professional services firm
relocate to the SLTIC area.
Referring to these high-repute
organizations as “tent pole” organizations, the leader of a major logistics innovation
organization stated, “Tent pole stakeholders are a must in these types of initiatives if the goal
is to get others involved. These types of organizations can make others take notice. Without
them, it’s difficult.” Another interviewee, a board member of a publicly-traded international
computer software company indicated, “For this to have a chance of working, there needs to
be significant linkage to major companies.” Various interviewees thought it important to
reiterate that neither a government agency nor university should have the lead role in such an
initiative. “The speed of companies and universities will never be the same. Government
entities and universities, while indispensable partners, are not nimble enough to take the lead
in these types of initiatives,” highlighted the chief executive of a large technology incubator.
“Economically, universities aren’t as versatile as corporations, and that type of versatility is
needed in technology development and diffusion,” added the executive director of a
technology research park.

Using a scale from 1 to 10 (1 = little to no importance; 5 = moderate importance, 10 = absolutely

essential) interviewees were asked to rate various organization types and to signify the
importance they perceived them to have in developing, advancing, and diffusing logistics
 57

technologies to markets. The organization types included in the rating exercise were
universities, technology incubators, venture capital firms, economic development authorities
and corporations through corporate venture units—all prevalently mentioned stakeholders
across industry reports and studies. The results were assessed from two perspectives. First,
the scores in aggregate were calculated to give a comprehensive view on how the collective
body of experts rated organization relevance. Second, the responses of logistics and supply
chain technology entrepreneurs were extracted and calculated to determine if any
differences existed between the perception of entrepreneurs regarding the contribution of
the various organization types and the expert group in general. As shown in Figure 1, results
for the collective group of experts reveal that technology incubators were scored as having
the most contribution, followed by venture investors, universities, corporate venture units and
then economic development authorities.

Figure 11: Perceived Contribution to Technology Development and Diffusion (Collective Group)

Incubators 7.74

Venture Investors 7.71

Universities 7.69

Corporate Venturing 7.14

Economic Development 4.76

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Summation of interview responses collected by CBAER

Isolated for comparison to the collective group, results for logistics and supply chain
technology entrepreneurs were mostly consistent with one exception; incubators (7.67) were
again perceived to have the most contribution, then, for entrepreneurs, followed by
universities (7.39), then venture investors (7.32), corporate venture units (7.05) and then
economic development authorities (4.68). It is worth elaborating on the apparent relatively
lower score assigned to economic development organizations. Respondents indicated that
this was not a reflection of the value of the work that economic development authorities do
on behalf of entrepreneurs and startups but more of a reflection of their comparative
contribution across the entirety of the technology development and diffusion to market
cycles relative to other organization types. Various respondents, particularly entrepreneurs,
spoke to the value EDOs can add early in the process through facilitating strategic
connections. Figure 12 illustrates the ratings of organization types by logistics and supply
chain technology entrepreneurs regarding their perceived contribution to logistics
technology development and diffusion.
 58

Figure 12: Perceived Contribution to Technology Development and Diffusion (Entrepreneurs)

Incubators 7.67

Universities 7.39

Venture Investors 7.32

Corporate Venturing 7.05

Economic Development 4.68

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Summation of interview responses collected by CBAER

CORPORATE VENTURING IN LOGISTICS TECHNOLOGY

As alluded to in the previous section, a clearly emergent theme was the perceived prevalence
and centrality of corporations in the development cycle of logistics technology and
innovation. Given the growth in corporate venturing activity in the logistics technology space,
the research team endeavored to determine how this increased activity was viewed by various
stakeholder types and if these perspectives provided insights worth considering as decision
makers develop SLTIC and LTIC strategies and programming. Study interviewees articulated
various perspectives. First, stakeholders highlighted the fact that the increased visibility and
stature of logistics and supply chain within corporations increased the appetite of corporate
boards to develop sustained competitive advantage in logistics and supply chain operations.
“Corporate venturing in logistics and supply chain will continue to increase,” stated the chief
executive of a technology research park; “Corporations are customers and they are being
proactive about identifying the ‘next big thing’ that can impact their industry. They just want
to find it and then go invest in it,” the executive concluded. Other interviewees supported this
point by adding that corporations invest directly in logistics startups to avoid the cost of
“catching up” over the long run. “When they do invest, if the solution proves successful
internally and is also commercially scalable, it becomes a win-win,” added the founder of an
inventory optimization software firm.

Another significant factor contributing to the rise in corporate venturing is the infusion of
readily available capital that startups have accessible to them when corporations invest in and
incubate them. “In these arrangements, access to capital is often no longer a constraint,”
explained the founder of a logistics technology software firm. Corporate venturing was also
cited as providing entrepreneurs with the platform to explore ‘real-life’ business problems
and processes for which solutions are needed. “It is sure great to be sitting at the table versus
across the table,” stated a logistics tech entrepreneur. Experts claimed that this dynamic
helped entrepreneurs gain valuable insights into the nuances of process dynamics during
 59

technology development and implementation at partner corporations; insights that can be

leveraged to establish compelling business use cases when selling developed solutions to the
broader market. “Well-structured corporate venturing partnerships are of mutual benefit.
They give entrepreneurs a competitive advantage by gaining an ‘under the hood view’ of the
business, and gives the investing corporation first mover advantages,” described the leader of
a technology incubator. “Corporate venturing activity allows corporations to de-risk their
investment in innovation by applying invested-in technologies internally, first, to improve
internal efficiencies, garner internal value,
and, then, commercialize the solution,”
detailed the chief innovation officer of a
merchandising firm. “They [corporations]
“Corporate venturing in
can remove roadblocks for startups and
provide otherwise difficult to obtain access logistics and supply chain will
to resources,” explained the founder of a continue to increase.”
cloud-based supply chain solutions – Chief executive of a
company. technology research park
Interviewees did caution however, that
corporate venturing is not without its
potential detractions. First is the potential
for sponsoring corporations to place self-interest ahead of market-wide interests when
incubating logistics technology startups. “Its key to determine whether a corporation is
investing from its balance sheet or from a separate fund,” exclaimed an information services
startup founder. Other interviewees mentioned the possibility of entrepreneurs being pigeon-
holed by the corporation, which demands custom solutions be developed solely for it, versus
solutions that are applicable across the industry. “This can be very constricting,” explained the
chief operating officer of a supply chain technology solutions provider. A seasoned startup
coach, also a technology entrepreneur, warned that it may be that instances in which the
amounts of cash available to entrepreneurs who enter into partnerships with corporations can
detract from the focus required to efficiently innovate, “This can take away from them being
good at what they are good at,” the coach concluded. Other interviewees noted the need for
entrepreneurs to guard the culture of their startups when partnering with large corporations.
Further, the dynamic of corporations utilizing corporate venturing as an HR strategic
mechanism to acquire innovation-oriented personnel was noted. Of note, several interviewees
highlighted that many corporations do not possess the capabilities to effectively engage in
corporate venturing and can adversely affect startups due to this, and, related, that many
corporations are currently not engaging in corporate venturing activity simply because they
have not been presented with this path of action.
 60

ROLE OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN LOGISTICS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

Irrespective of area of application, universities were considered by expert interviewees to be

of fundamental importance to the development and deployment of technologies and
innovation. As such, this sentiment was also expressed regarding logistics technologies.
Interviewees identified three ways in which they believe universities substantially add value to
technology and innovation initiatives. The predominant two were (i) by providing a high
caliber talent through well trained students and (ii) by faculty with expertise in particular
markets or functional operations working with startups and their corporate partners. A third
activity group; research and development (R&D) and technology incubation activities, was
mentioned in various instances as adding significant value, but that value was contingent on
specific factors and conditions.

From a workforce perspective, conclusively, experts indicated this as being the primary value-
stream that universities offer. “Is there credible training in computer science, math and
electrical engineering? That’s what we ask ‘from the get go,’” explained the chief executive of
a highly successful supply chain optimization software firm. Interviewees indicated that the
involvement of a university with strong programs in math, science, engineering, and, because
of the functional area of focus for the SLTIC, logistics and supply chain management is of
critical importance. “The best talent comprises those students that have a mix of business and
computer science education,” explained an innovation executive for a large retailer. Mention
was also made of the relevance of educational programs in service design and design
thinking. All respondents indicated that while each of the fields of study are different, one of
the common threads between them, and one that is essential in the arena, is high levels of
analytical and quantitative competence. “These hubs are successful when located in close
proximity to university systems with programs that provide substantial bases of technological
and analytical expertise. A very strong university system is essential. It’s what we’ve seen,”
offered the chief executive at a technology incubator. “We hire graduate students in
engineering and supply chain and work with professors on an individual basis,” described the
founder of an inventory optimization software firm.

Interviewees were asked to indicate by assigning an importance score between 1 and 10 (with
1 = little to no importance; 5 = moderately important, 10 = absolutely essential) which
educational program types most supported logistics and supply chain technology
development and diffusion to markets. Interviewees indicated that graduate engineering and
science programs (8.57) provide most support, followed by graduate supply chain
management programs (8.29), then executive education related to logistics and supply chain
technology (7.00), then short courses in the business and marketing of technology (6.86),
followed by short courses and certification in coding and computer programming (6.86).
Results and feedback indicated that the market places a high premium on graduate STEM and
logistics and supply chain management programs. Figure 13 illustrates the ratings of education
program types regarding their perceived contribution to logistics technology development
and diffusion.
 61

Figure 13: Contribution to LSCM Innovation by Education Programming Type

Graduate Engineering and Science 8.57

Graduate Supply Chain 8.29

Executive Education 7.00

Business of Technology 6.86

Coding and Programming 6.86

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Summation of interview responses collected by CBAER

Of note, various respondents indicated university professors provide significant value in the
logistics technology development arena by applying their expertise on the markets and
industries through projects with startups and their corporate partners. Faculty members often
engage with these companies due to expertise in particular geographic, product or service
markets; specific logistics or supply chain processes; or specific analytical, quantitative, or
engineering methodologies that startups utilize in developing solutions. As said by a logistics
technology startup founder:
The value we get from the universities we work with are from well-trained students
with high levels of technical and technological skills, and professors that conduct
applied research and assist with building optimization models that we use as input to
solutions we develop.
The areas of R&D and university-led technology incubators were mentioned by most
interviewees, and opinions on the value derived from them were mixed. Respondents
indicated a very wide variance between universities regarding the productivity and
effectiveness of technology-based R&D and that this has often made commercial enterprises
reluctant to invest in them substantially. An executive running the venture arm of a large
logistic provider said:
When they work, however, they really work. When the university has the caliber of
faculty and students that can bring results through idea and concept generation and
can then follow that up with the technical competence necessary to get to a proof of
concept and working prototype, we begin to take notice.
Other respondents raised concerns over what they perceived to be relatively low levels of
ROI on funding-to-product conversion ratios in university-led technology incubation and
transfer efforts. The chief executive of an industrial software enterprise company said:
We always look for the research dollars-to-commercial product conversion rates of
university incubation and technology transfer offices. As to what we look for in
university-led incubators, and incubators across the board, we pay attention to how
 62

many profitable businesses have gone to market, not just how many have gone to
market. Investors need returns and the way they get it is when startups have cash flow
from profitable operations. That’s what we look for.
Other respondents added to this sentiment by indicating the importance of universities, if in
arrangements in which they do take the intellectual lead in logistics technology innovation
activities, having very strong links to commercial enterprises to facilitate a sustainable
development cycle. “It’s inevitable, to be successful, academia and government will have to
show a link to commercial activity and enterprises,” explained a venture capitalist who invests
in logistics and supply chain startups. “I have seen very productive university-led incubators;
they’ve done it right, strong university system and strong industry connections,” concluded
the leader of a large independently-ran technology incubator.

Other thoughts around university involvement

in logistics technology development emerged.
Interviewees indicated that universities have a “Opportunities await the
unique opportunity to become highly relevant universities that are willing to
by facilitating student access and exposure to adapt and develop hybrid
predominately-used and emerging software models aimed at fostering
and technology platforms. The strategic
technology development.”
implication is that many logistics and supply
chain software firms have challenges selling
–Startup Consultant
their products to corporate customers, who are
reluctant to purchase due to their employees
not having experience and the skill necessary to use the software. As a result, many software
companies seek strategic partnerships with universities so that students and faculty members
can be engaged with their software platforms. This bears significant benefit for universities;
students get exposure to a variety of software platforms, becoming more market relevant,
and faculty members get opportunities to engage their expertise in research and
development and, in some instances, the universities also become involved in the software
development cycle. A regional executive for one of the world’s largest supply chain firms said:
We’ve established a very strong strategic relationship with a large university in the
Midwest United States. Its students utilize our software and are involved in testing; the
faculty works on modelling; and we can share with our customers the availability of a
talent pool versed in the many platforms we offer, amongst the other software
packages they are also exposed to from other vendors. It’s phenomenal.
Various interviewees highlighted the need for universities to be innovative and flexible in
their approaches to technology and innovation-related pursuits. The rapid pace of
technological advancements, and its resultant effect on so many of the spheres in which
universities are involved, requires strategies that ensure university programming remains
relevant and continues to sustainably add-value for key stakeholders. As a startup consultant
and technology incubator program director said:
 63

I truly believe that certain universities can lose their dominance if they continue to try
to pursue this in the manner in which their institutions have traditionally done so.
Opportunities await the universities that are willing to adapt and develop hybrid
models aimed at fostering technology development. I am convinced that schools that
have nimble programming in this area will be able to capitalize on these opportunities
Asked to indicate how kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) institutions of education can
best support logistics and supply chain technology development and diffusion to markets,
almost conclusively, experts perceived no direct link or contribution to the technology
development cycle nor diffusion to markets process. Experts did, however, see long-run
strategic relevance from two perspectives. The first being that K-12 institutions should
develop programming or initiatives aimed at incentivizing students to pursue STEM-related
fields and the field of logistics and supply chain management in college. A listing of selected
programs in the region can be found in the Appendix E. This was stated to be especially
important for populations that are underrepresented in STEM fields. Of note, interviewees
highlighted that the strength of the K-12 system in the Savannah area will be critically
important in recruiting talent for the SLTIC and LTIC because individuals will pay attention to
the education system that their children will be part of. “The strength of the K-12 system is a
key recruiting mechanism,” stated the chief executive of a technology incubator; “A top notch
school system will attract top notch engineers,” added a manufacturing supply chain
executive.

PERCEPTIONS OF SAVANNAH AS A LOGISTICS HUB

A subset of 18 interview participants, identified as Savannah-area stakeholders, were asked to

comment on various Savannah-centric factors, given the fact they conduct their professional
activities in the Savannah area. The objective of these sets of interview questions was to gain
insights into Savannah-specific factors and dynamics that either lend support and credence to
SLTIC and LTIC activities and programming or that need to be addressed in order to not be
an impediment to any such activities. Interviewees were asked to rate Savannah on a scale
from 1 to 10 (1 = very low; 5 = adequate; 10 =extremely high), as a place to start and operate any
type of business. The resulting score was 8.1 with respondents indicating the city is very open
and welcomed to business and that the culture lent itself to a thriving business ecosystem.
Respondents were then asked to provide their perspective by scoring Savannah on a scale
from 1 to 10 (1 = very low; 5 = adequate; 10 =extremely high), as a place to start and operate a
logistics and supply chain technology business, for which the resulting score was marginally
higher at 8.5; with respondents indicating that the logistics and supply chain ecosystem in
Savannah offered a rich business case for technology firms focusing on the function and
industry of logistics.

A follow up question sought to determine participant perspectives on the perceived

willingness of both corporations and logistics subject matter experts in the Savannah area to
support SLTIC activities and initiatives. Asked to rate on a scale from 1 to 10, (1 = not willing at
all; 5 = somewhat willing; 10 =very willing), what they perceived to be the level of willingness of
 64

logistics and supply chain-related companies in the Savannah area to support logistics
innovation and technology development activity, participants assigned a score of 7.9. When
asked how much they as subject matter experts would be willing to invest their resources and
expertise in logistics innovation and technology development activity of the SLTIC and the
LTIC, respondents assigned a score of 8.7, substantially higher than that of their perceptions
around corporate entities, but both scores were favorable. It should be pointed out that study
participants were not speaking on behalf of their organizations and that an element of this
may have been factored into the weighting they assigned to their perceptions around
corporate willingness, definitive corporate commitment requires broader conversations
beyond the scope of the current study. Figure 14 illustrates the scores assigned by study
participants regarding both the perceived “startup-friendliness” of Savannah and corporate
and expert willingness to support logistics technology development and diffusion activity in
the Savannah area.
Figure 14: Perceived “Startup-Friendliness” and Willingness
to Support Logistics Technology Development in the Savannah Area
10

9 8.7
8.5
8.1
7.9
8

5
Generic Startup Technology Startup Corporate Willingess Expert Willingess

Study participants were asked to identify the factors that can potentially make Savannah a
location of choice for logistics technology and innovation activity. Anchored by the Georgia
Ports Authority, the logistics ecosystem in Savannah was cited as the predominant reason for
it being advantageous for logistics and supply chain technology development activity to occur
in the area. The existence of the port engenders a density of logistics and supply chain
activity that has resulted in a concentration of transportation terminals, rail facilities,
distribution centers, warehouses, manufacturing facilities, other types of logistics assets,
along with a concentration of logistics subject matter expertise within the area. This
concentration was cited by study participants as a unique “native environment” for
entrepreneurs seeking to develop solutions aimed at solving logistics operations and process
problems. Interviewees noted that Savannah’s connectivity through Highways I-95, I-16, and
GA 56 makes it a unique facilitator of varied distribution strategies involving the southeast
United States.
 65

As noted by the leader of a supply chain division of a major retailer, “Savannah is a push and
pull node in the supply chain. Forecasted ‘speculative inventory’ is pushed to Savannah,
stored, and then pulled based on demand. Savannah is unique and holds a very strategic spot
in the supply chain.” Other factors identified as favorable for the Savannah-area being a
location of choice included the presence of designated economic and enterprise zones;
favorable tax benefits; the potential access to groups of angel investors, given a
concentration of high net worth individuals that, among them retirees, reside in Savannah; the
proximity to Atlanta; the potential operational adjacency to “Supply Chain City” initiatives
occurring within Atlanta; military operations in Hunter Army Airfield and Fort Stewart; and the
campuses of various reputable institutions of higher education located in the area. Factors
not directly related to the business of logistics technology but deemed to be important
included a perceived growing interest amidst the U.S. population in smaller-sized cities,
resulting in increased migration to them and an appreciation for the climate and weather in
the area.

Conclusively, participants that were Savannah stakeholders indicated that decision makers
and leaders should definitely pursue and invest in the SLTIC and the LTIC initiatives. When
asked for their perspectives on should such an initiative be invested in, “If there is anything
that the Savannah area wants to pursue in the arena of technology and innovation, it will have
to be in logistics,” communicated an innovation executive for a regional retailer. All
interviewees highlighted that the logistics ecosystem in the Savannah area offers a high value
proposition for the initiative and should be leveraged. “Savannah is among the ripest locations
in the nation positioned for growth opportunities in logistics technology,” added the chief
operating officer of a large information technology services provider currently investing in
the logistics industry.
 66

LOGISTICS AND SUPPLY CHAIN TECHNOLOGY ENTREPRENEURS

Of importance to the study was to capture the perspective of logistics and supply chain
technology entrepreneurs who have, themselves, founded, operated, and successfully grown
startups that have taken several technological solutions to market. The perspectives of these
entrepreneurs offered key insights that can be used to inform designing SLTIC and LTIC
strategy, services, and programming. As such, the objective of this section of questions was to
get logistics technology entrepreneurs’ perspectives on the factors that contribute to
successful logistics and supply chain technology startups; the factors that influence decision-
making regarding startup location; preferred economic incentives; the factors perceived to
make Savannah a location of choice for logistics technology entrepreneurs; and thoughts on
whether the SLTIC and the LTIC are initiatives that should be invested. Twenty logistics and
supply chain technology entrepreneurs participated in the interviews for this segment of the
study.

Regarding the factors that most influence the success of a logistics technology startup
venture, the consensus was near total amongst interviewees that access to talent, capital, and
customers, in that order, were of critical importance. Providing more details, interviewees
explained that, when customers are established companies that are willing to infuse capital
into the technology development process, the likelihood of success is greater. The founder of
a tracking and tracing technology startup based in Georgia added that, “One of the best
things that has happened to us was the confluence of density of subject matter expertise, a
top rate university system, and a business-friendly state.”

Regarding the factors that are most important when deciding on the best geographic location
for a logistics-based technology startup, interviewees indicated that, similarly, access to
customers, talent, and capital are predominant factors. Frequently mentioned also, and
closely related to a desire for a customer base in proximity, was the existence of an industry
cluster in which use cases and proven business cases can be explored and determined. From
a talent perspective, specific mentions were made of the need for highly skilled and
experienced software engineers and logistics subject matter experts, as well as access to
highly relevant academic research and thought leadership. It was also noted that a reluctance
to locate in any geographic location without a concentration of executive decision makers and
in which the market is not already organized results in entrepreneurs having to engage in
“missionary” selling. Interviewees also articulated that the existence of a healthy level of
startups like theirs lent itself to an ecosystem rich in idea generation and mentorship. Of note,
several interviewees indicated that proximity to a major airport was also very important as it
facilitated business travel and mattered to potential employees.

Based on an extensive review of industry reports and prior research, a list of factors that have
been shown to influence startup location decisions, many of which were mentioned by
participants in their respective interviews, was compiled, and interviewees were asked to rate
each on a scale from one to 10 (1 = little to no importance; 5 = moderately important, 10 =
 67

absolutely essential) in terms of their importance in deciding if to locate a logistics or supply

chain management-based technology startup venture in a specific geographic location.
Interestingly, access to transportations systems (specifically a major airport but also public
transit systems) (8.80) was rated highest; followed by the availability of technical talent (8.70);
this was followed by access to capital and funding (8.60); quality of life factors (6.70) like the
arts, culture, and social activity; the housing market (6.60); an existing network of similar
startups (6.40) and the existence of technology incubation programs (6.30); which was then
followed by economic incentives (5.80) which, interestingly, was followed by the existence of
market or subject matter expertise (4.20). Asking various interviewees, post analysis, how they
interpreted the score assigned to the existence of subject matter or market expertise within
the location of choice, they indicated that it is necessary but if necessary, they are able to
access such expertise through agreements with management consultants or academic
experts outside of any particular locale. Figure 15 illustrates the scores assigned by logistics
and supply chain technology entrepreneurs about the importance of factors considered when
deciding where to locate.

Figure 15: Importance of Factors Influencing Startup Location Decision Making

Transport Systems 8.80

Technical Talent 8.70
Funding 8.60
Quality of Life 6.70
Housing Market 6.60
Similar-Business Network 6.40
Technology Incubators 6.30
Economic Incentives 5.80
Market Expertise 4.20

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Summation of interview responses collected by CBAER

Regarding preferences for specific economic incentives, interviewees indicated that various
incentives were beneficial and that these included the existence of opportunity zones, tax
credits, hiring and job provision credits, research and development credits, and student loan
reduction incentives. It is worth noting that a portion of interviewees indicated they were not
aware of economic incentives and that the benefits of pursuing them was never disseminated
to them. This dynamic suggests the possible existence of an opportunity for government
agencies to market and communicate the value of economic incentives to the startup
community.
 68

Asked to identify the factors that can make Savannah a location of choice for a logistics
technology startup, interviewees listed the port and its influence; the logistics ecosystem;
education programs in supply chain; the availability of front-end technical skills; the
concentration of logistics operations expertise; quality of life factors like the food and
beaches; and proximity to similar activities in Atlanta as attractive factors. Further was a
sentiment that the investment in an SLTIC and an LTIC was worth considering by decision
makers, once governing entities can ensure that the talent will be available and accessible,
can induce corporate investment, and can coordinate between all necessary stakeholder
partners through an effective operating structure. The founder of a supply chain workforce
solutions provider said:
The necessary entities all speak different languages, a governing entity that
understands each, is not slow and bureaucratic, and that can move with the speed
necessary to bring innovation to market is what is needed to bring success. It’s
possible and will take effort.

EMERGING THEMES

In assessing and analyzing the collected interview responses, specific themes were consistent
across respondents and within specific expert stakeholder groups. These represent key
elements of consideration in any formulated LTIC and SLTIC strategy, plan, and
programming, given the consistency and consensus amongst expert interviewees regarding
them. The themes are displayed in the Table 18.

The structured interviews with industry leaders were extremely helpful in understanding the
thematic dynamics of the logistics technology, what it is and what it could become. The next
section looks specific to the Savannah area to assess whether the area has the appropriate
elements in place to facilitate the development of a center that could serve as a cornerstone
of the logistics technology corridor.
 69

Table 18: Emergent Themes form Logistics Technology Expert Interviews

Theme Emerging
Description and Context SLTIC/LTIC Consideration
Category Theme
Corporations have a unique role in the development, A Savannah Logistics Technology and Innovation Hub
advancement and diffusion of logistics technology to (Corridor)/ Logistics Technology and Innovation Center
Corporations markets. In addition to being the customer, in growing would both assume operating structures and programmatic
Are Key numbers of instances, they assume the role of coach and content in which corporations, being strategic partners in
capital source through corporate venturing activity, the hub/center, are allotted appropriate levels of decision-
innovation centers, incubators, and accelerators. making authority and strategic input.

Universities Universities are central and indispensable entities in the

The LTIC can work to act as a service center that facilitates
Bring development, advancement and diffusion of logistics
industry and student/faculty connection on projects, cases,
Talent…Maybe technology to markets. The most important resources they
demonstrations etc. The LTIC will need to develop a very
the bring to bear are trained students (workforce) and faculty
robust agenda if engaging in R&D and incubation activity.
Technology experts with knowledge of markets or operations.

Georgia Ports is a leading force in the economic, supply

chain, and logistics activity that occurs in the U.S., Georgia,
Institutional
and Savannah. It therefore would be necessary that for The LTIC and SLTIC will have to first, acquire Georgia Ports
Roles and It’s all About
any Savannah-based activity aimed at the development, as a strategic partner that is central to SLTIC and LTIC
Governance the Port
advancement and diffusion of logistics technology to programming and initiatives
Structure
markets, that Georgia Ports is positioned to assume
strategic and central role.
To induce technology and innovation activity in the
Savannah area, there needs to be substantial and visible
Credible commitment of influential and credible organizational The LTIC and SLTIC will have to partner with institutions
Partners Carry stakeholders and strategic partners. These “tent poles” that are recognized in their respective industries as a means
Weight include corporations, educational institutions, investors, of building initiative credibility.
and other stakeholders of repute, bearing economic and
social influence and capital.

Several study respondents indicated not being aware of

Economic The LTIC and SLTIC can engage in innovative programming
the benefits of engaging with an economic development
Development that bridges the perceived gap between technology
authority during the technology development cycle, or not
and Startups entrepreneurs and EDAs
being aware of the available incentives.
 70

Theme Emerging
Description and Context SLTIC/LTIC Consideration
Category Theme

Corporations involved in the Savannah area need to access The LTIC and SLTIC can engage to devise and articulate very
It is about the revenue streams and eventual profit, and entrepreneurs clear economic value creation pathways from any
Money need funding. Startup activity needs to be profitable and programming that involves the partnership and resource
turn cash. commitment of corporate entities.

The logistics industry is highly fragmented and as a result,

Logistics
technology entrepreneurs can encounter issues regarding The LTIC and SLTIC can develop programming geared toward
Industry
Innovations scale. However, opportunities are shown to exist when strategically selected niches within the logistics industry and
Fragmentation
Drivers and solutions are developed for niches involving very specific across logistics processes.
Effect
Ecosystems industry segments or logistics processes.

Integration of data and systems was a consistently

Integration mentioned technological need. Developing these solutions The LTIC and SLTIC can develop programming geared toward
Solutions: The can be very complex and challenging because of inter- and research and outreach aimed at more deeply understanding
Golden Ticket intra-firm system discrepancies, but innovative solutions in and solving the technology integration issue.
this space offer immense value to customers.

There’s The LTIC and SLTIC can work to ensure that students in logistics
The availability and access to both technical and
Nothing technology-relevant fields of study are exposed to high quality
engineering, and functional area expertise in logistics and
Without experiential learning opportunities, in addition to rigorous
supply chain are critically important factors
Talent programs of study.

The LTIC and SLTIC can develop a strategy comprised of

Due to fragmentation, and a wide range of logistics and
pursuing programming within specific themes and topics that
Carve a Niche supply chain technology investing activity, technological
Strategic best leverage the capabilities of the lead university and the
and Drive solutions that are specific to a subset of logistics functional
Focus ecosystem, in an effort to deliver concentrated, high
Value in It operations, markets, processes or use-cases will be able to
magnitudes of value to the logistics technology and innovation
scale and garner resource and capital support more readily.
community.
 71

CRITICAL MASS RATING

Building on the interviews, economic, industrial and occupational analyses, the research team prepared
an in-depth look at the City of Savannah and Chatham County to assess readiness to support business
development. This segment of the analysis examines the general economic conditions that support
business development efforts. Of the 15 variables used to analyze community readiness each are
broken up into three categories which includes (i) population, (ii) economic and business conditions,
and (iii) local support for business development. Table 19 provides the model that guided the
assignment of points values. Allocated points went to specific success factors with partial points being
awarded in place where only part of the standard is met. The result provides an indicator of the
likelihood that support is present to expand business development services in Savannah MSA and
Chatham County.

A complete breakdown of the critical mass index with the possible scores per rating factor can be
found on the following page in Table 19.
 72

Table 19: Critical Mass Rating Possible Scores

Population Factor
Annual growth rate above state 2
Population Trends Annual growth rate below state but positive 1
Annual growth rate negative 0
Economic and Business Conditions
Average more than 3 per month 3
Average more than 2 but less than 3 2
New Non-Farm Proprietors Employment
Average more than 1 but less than 2 1
Average less than 1 per month 0
Average more than 4 per month 3
Average more than 2 but less than 4 2
Target sector establishment by year
Average more than 1 but less than 2 1
Average less than 1 per month 0
Positive Trend 1
Total Retail Sales
Negative Trend 0
1
Bank Deposits Positive Core
0
2-Year Positive Trend 2
Total Private Employment Stable 1
Negative 0
100 or more units 3
99 to 51 units 2
Manufacturing Units
50 to 26 units 1
25 to 0 units 0
Industrial Activity 1 or more new location per year 1
Ratio of technical units to business units 1:10 3
1:11 – 1:15 2
Technical Core
1:16 – 1:20 1
1:21 or more 0
Local support for Business Development
4-Year College 3
Higher Education 2-Year College 2
Technical School 1
Industrial Development Organization (IDO) Operating in area 1
Chamber of Commerce Operating in area 2
Operating Incubator 3
Incubator Activity
Under Development 2
SBDC Access to nearby SBDC 1
Very Positive 3
Positive 2
Leadership Attitude
Receptive 1
Non-Receptive 0
Source: Stacey and Associates, Tupelo/Lee County, Mississippi Small Business Incubator Feasibility Study
 73

POPULATION FACTORS

The only population factor used in this analysis is population growth. A growing population is a sign of
a healthy community. Typically, an increasing population can contribute to increases in the capital
present in the community, construction of homes, bank deposits, and many other economic factors.
Individuals typically follow opportunities present in the marketplace. Therefore, growing populations
are usually associated with a growing economy. Displayed in Table 20 is the population trend for
Savannah MSA and Chatham County.

Table 20: Total Population

Area 2017 2018 2019 % Change Critical Mass Scoring

Georgia 10,410,330 10,511,131 10,617,423 4%
1
Chatham County 289,309 289,166 289,430 1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2019), Population Estimates Program

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS CONDITIONS

When developing a business services operation, it is critical to evaluate the current economic and
business conditions present in the core market. New businesses rely on more than their own hard work
to become successful. Local demand and a supportive business climate both play a role in developing a
culture of entrepreneurship that supports startups. The factors displayed in this part of the critical
mass rating system demonstrate the statistical opportunities present in this market. By looking at the
factors incorporated in this section, it is possible to identify the strengths and weaknesses present in
this community. By understanding these factors, stakeholders in this project will have information that
leads to data-driven development goals.

NON-FARM PROPRIETORS EMPLOYMENT

This factor measures the number of proprietorships and partnerships present in the target community.
Businesses included in this factor will typically have few employees. It is included because this is where
many entrepreneurs start their operations.

Table 21: Non-farm Proprietors Employment

Average Per Critical Mass

Area 2016 2017 2018
Month 2016-2018 Scoring
Savannah MSA 43,255 47,149 48,830 232
3
Chatham County 33,968 36,703 38,015 169
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce (2020) U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Income and Employment (CA 30
Regional Economic Profiles)
 74
PRIVATE SECTOR CORE MARKET ESTABLISHMENTS

These variables measure the number of business establishments in the target industry discussed
previously. Establishments in the core industry are important because they provide an insight into the
potential amount of growth already taking place in the focus area. This is a more targeted measure
because the team is only looking at core industries present in the area.

Table 22: Changes in Total Private Sector Establishments

Avg Annual Critical Mass
Area 2016 2017 2018
% Change Scoring
Savannah MSA
Logistics Industry 413 393 397 -4% 0
Technology Industry 371 352 351 -5%
Chatham County
Logistics Industry 345 334 337 -2% 0
Technology Industry 312 297 294 -6%
Source: JobsEQ, Chmura Economics

TOTAL RETAIL SALES

Total retail sales include the entire retail market as defined using North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes along with the food and beverage industry. This type of spending
can be a key indicator of community wealth. Among other factors, retail sales can be linked to
attracting skilled employees looking to relocate to the region and as a factor in developing a strong
tourism industry.
Table 23: Total Retail Sales (Million 2012 $)

Avg Annual % Critical Mass

Area 2017 2018 2019
Change Scoring
Savannah MSA $6,581 $6,786 $6,906 5%
1
Chatham County $5,599 $5,765 $5,858 5%
Source: Woods and Poole, 2019 Georgia StateProfile

BANKING DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS FUNDS

This success factor is broken into two separate categories, each receiving a half point. Bank deposits
are included because many small businesses get loans from local banks. Many banks get their capital to
lend from the deposits held at the institution. In other cases, some small business owners may be able
to procure funds from investors or venture capital. Therefore, both factors are included in the tables
for this success factor.
 75
Table 24: Bank Deposits ($000)
Avg Annual Critical Mass
Area 2017 2018 2019
% Change Scoring
Savannah MSA $7,187,136 $7,050,499 $7,338,476 2%
0.5
Chatham County $6,362,858 $6,192,512 $6,445,755 1%
Source: FDIC Data Book, Summary of Deposits

Note that this venture capital table covers the entire state of Georgia. Those providing this form of
financing typically find good places to invest their resources and are willing to look at good
opportunities wherever they can be found.

Table 25: State of Georgia and Venture Capital Association (in thousands)

Critical Mass
Area 2017 2018 2019
Scoring
Transactions 169 156 178
0.5
Amount invested $1,312.60 $999.60 $1,902.70
Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers, National Venture Capital Association

In addition to these funding sources the Creative Coast along with the Center for Innovation in
Bluffton, South Carolina recently began developing a Bridge Fund. This will affect eight counties in
both Georgia and South Carolina. The goal is to secure $3 million to support early-stage, technology
driven businesses. Plans are that these funds will enable investments in roughly 30 early-stage
companies at approximately $50,000 each. The balance of the BRIDGE Fund will be used to support
add-on investments. In part due to federal funding, $690,000 is available to support the establishment
and operations of the fund. (Coast 2019)

TOTAL PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT

This variable tracks the amount of employment that is present in the private sector economy. Excluded
from private sector employment is all federal, state, and local government employment. Communities
with strong levels of growth in these categories are also associated with higher levels of job
opportunities and new job creation.

Table 26: Total Private Employment

Critical Mass
Area 2017 2018 2019
Scoring
Savannah MSA 146,527 151,416 154,413
2
Chatham County 133,133 137,180 139,954
Source: Georgia Development of Labor
 76

MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS

To determine the number of manufacturing units operating in this geographic area, the research team
used data at the establishment level. These establishments differ from businesses because it is possible
to have two establishments owned by the same business. These figures are included because
manufacturing still has a significant impact on demand for goods and services in the local and national
economy. This demand can come either from the companies’ needs for goods or services or from
employees with jobs in this industry demanding and having the income to purchase goods and services
present in the local economy. Included in this success factor is the number of establishments with
fewer than four employees. These companies are often likely to have higher growth potential than
companies with larger current levels of employment.

Table 27: Manufacturing Units

Critical Mass
Area 2015 2016 2017
Scoring
Savannah MSA
Total 208 224 216
less than 5 Employees 64 78 67
Chatham County 3
Total 169 187 181
less than 5 Employees 47 68 58
Source: Georgia Development of Labor

INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY

Within the past year (2019), Chatham County has been the site selected by at least two new
companies. In April of 2019 Plastic Express announced that it would be creating 166 new jobs and
investing $172 million in Pooler at the Port Logistics Center (Georgia Department of Economic
Development 2019) Also in 2019, Raceix selected Savannah as its U.S. headquarters. This company
makes experiential and social apps and hardware targeted to boaters. (Global Atlanta 2019) Due to the
addition of these companies, a Critical Mass rating of 1 is assigned.
 77
TECHNICAL CORE

The technical core includes NAICS sectors that have many of the high-skill jobs that are of significant
importance to the community due to the skills needed. Many of these skills are important to
entrepreneurs as they prepare to launch their new businesses. Having these skills present in the target
community can save entrepreneurs valuable travel time. Examples of skills included in these sectors
are attorneys, accountants, computer system designers, and management consultants. Many of these
categories fall under the following NAICS code industries:

● Information (NAICS 51);

● Finance and Insurance (NAICS 52);
● Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (NAICS 54);
● Management of Companies and Enterprises (NAICS 55); and
● Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Service (NAICS 56)

Table 28: Establishments Within the Technical Core

Core All Avg Annual

Area Ratio
Establishment Establishments % Change
Savannah MSA 2,124 7,834 4.31 0
Chatham County 1,816 9,244 4.35 0
Source: Georgia Development of Labor

LOCAL SUPPORT FOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

Entrepreneurs that are working to start a new venture can face many issues. Communities that have
the right network and entrepreneurial culture can aid the development of new local businesses. These
networks can help to guide business owners down the right path and provide information to struggling
operations when a course correction is needed. Having a reliable network of community supporters
will help entrepreneurs as they enter the start-up process.
 78

HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

The availability of higher education provides the area with resources that will help the population
develop critical skills and provides access to job training programs essential to economic development.
The Savannah MSA has 13 educational institutions that will help all residents to learn the skills needed
to enhance job prospects, which could boost the local economy. The institutions present in the
Savannah MSA are listed in Table 29.

Table 29: Savannah MSA Higher Education

Type of
Institution
Institution
Georgia Southern University 4-year public
Savannah College of Art and Design 4-year private
Savannah State University 4-year public
Savannah Technical College 2-year public
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University 4-year private
Georgia Institute of Technology 4-year public
South University 4-year private
Strayer University 4-year private
Saint Leo University 4-year private
Mercer University School of Medicine 4-year private
Columbia College 4-year private
University of Phoenix- Savannah 4-year private
Webster University 4-year private
Source: Savannah Economic Development Authority, Education Data Center

In addition, there are several other institutions that are close to the Savannah MSA that could also be
used by Savannah start-up, which are:
● College of Coastal Georgia, Brunswick, Georgia
● University of South Carolina-Beaufort, Bluffton, South Carolina
● Technical College of the Lowcountry Beaufort, South Carolina
● Coastal Pines Technical College, Waycross, Georgia
● Ogeechee Technical College, Statesboro, Georgia

Taken together it is possible to get a 4-year degree, 2-year degree, and technical degree in the
Savannah MSA. Using this information, a complete critical mass rating source of 6 is awarded.
 79

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION (IDO)

The Savannah MSA has three development organizations that do traditional industrial economic
development including the Savannah Economic Development Authority, Development Authority of
Bryan County and the Effingham County Industrial Development Authority. In addition, the World
Trade Center Savannah is working to promote international business and trade between the Savannah
area the rest of the world. This trade assistance can either focus on helping local businesses sell goods
and services overseas or on aiding international companies open to an office in the Savannah area.
Based upon the work of these organizations, the score of 1 is awarded.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

In Chatham County, the Savannah Area Chamber of Commerce is very active in the community. It
supports many actives targeted to aid business development. This includes the Small Business Council,
which was developed to provide small businesses with resources that can help these businesses grow.
Events provided by this group include Power Hour luncheons, Coffee Chats morning networking,
Courses and Conversation lunches, Speed Networking sessions, and Business on the Move networking
sessions. Using this information as the justification, the research team awards a critical Mass Rating of
1 for this part of the rating system.

INCUBATOR ACTIVITY

In addition to undertaking this study, the clients have already created the Savannah Logistics
Technology Innovation Corridor. The purpose of this area is to be an economic development tool that
aids the development of a high-tech industries in Savannah. It also supported the development of the
SLTC Taskforce, which is made up of business and community leaders that are working together to
grow the Savannah area. Using this information as the justification, the research team awards a Critical
Mass Rating score of 2 for this part of the rating system.

SBDC

Chatham County is part of the Southern Coastal Small Business Development Center (SBDC) region.
The center is part of The University of Georgia SBDC network. Within the Southern Coastal region,
the SBDC has conducted about 26 programs in 2019. This area will continue to be an active area in the
creation of enterprises that require assistance from the SBDC. Based upon this information, the
community is awarded full credit in the Critical Mass Rating score of 1.
 80

LEADERSHIP ATTITUDE

The strongest testament to the community’s attitude toward the development of the center is the
creation of the Savannah Logistics Technology Taskforce. The engagement of public and private
sector leaders committed to advancing the corridor is a strong indicator of community-wide support
for the center and desire to position the area as a leader in the industry. The recent inclusion of the
heads of Georgia Southern University and SEDA to direct the activities of the effort speaks volumes to
the perceived role and priority this effort has within the academic and economic development
communities. Apart from this are several other programs aiding the development of entrepreneurship
and can contribute to sustaining the activities of the center. These programs are listed here:

• Small Business Assistance Corporation–provides

financial services and technical assistance and provides
lending services to promote the growth of small
businesses. (City of Savannah 2020)

• Creative Coast–promotes and cultivates creative and

innovative technology-based business endeavors and
transforms Savannah into a vibrant hub for innovation and
technology. (City of Savannah 2020)

• Savannah SCORE–non-profit organization funded by

Congressional grants and private donations. SCORE is a
resource partner of the U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA) dedicated to helping the small business community
through mentoring, business counseling, workshops, and
more. (City of Savannah 2020)

• City of Savannah, Office of Business Opportunity–

“focuses on programs and activities that are geared
toward improving economic opportunities and
increasing financial well-being for individuals, families, and small businesses in Savannah.”
(Office of Business Opportunity 2020)

It is possible that a new or expanded program could aid the development of entrepreneurs. These
could be an effective way to leverage all these programs to better serve the region. Chatham County
is large enough to support many business development service offerings. Both SEDA and the City of
Savannah have been good partners in the development of this report. This partnership will make
starting a new program a less daunting project. Based upon these considerations, we assign a Critical
Mass Rating score of 3 to the leadership attitude factor.
 81

FINDING OF CRITICAL MASS RATING

The rating scales discussed in the Critical Mass Rating section were used to evaluate Chatham County
readiness for a center that could serve as the cornerstone for the logistics technology corridor. The
total score is derived from each of the individual indicators as summarized in Table 30.
Table 30: Total Critical Mass Rating for Chatham County and Savannah MSA
Local Total Possible
Major Factors
Scores Score
Population Factor
Population Trends 1 2
Economic and Business Conditions
New Nonfarm Proprietors Employment 3 3
Target sector establishment by year 0 3
Total Retail Sales 1 1
Bank Deposits 1 1
Total Private Employment 2 2
Manufacturing Units 3 3
Industrial Activity 1 1
Technical Core 0 3
Local support for Business Development
Higher Education 6 6
Industrial Development Organization (IDO) 1 1
Chamber of Commerce 1 1
Incubator Activity 2 3
SBDC 1 1
Leadership Attitude 3 3
Total 26 34
Source: CBAER Analysis a Stacey and Associates Rating Scales

The total rating displayed in Table 30 was used to determine if the county is ready for a business
incubator or comparable center that could serve as a central point to the logistics technology corridor.
Outlined below is the key used to interpret a Critical Mass Rating as it appeared in the previously cited
Tupelo/Lee County, Mississippi Small Business Incubator Feasibility Study.
 82

Figure 16: Critical Mass Rating Scale Ranges

26 points and above

Areas possessing a critical mass rating of 26 and above are deemed to have the
necessary elements to sustain a “Full Service” incubator without the addition of any
support programs.
19 to 25 points

Areas possessing critical mass within this range would likely be more effective as
incubator satellites linked to a primary facility or as a hub linking several smaller
satellites. If the missing critical mass elements in these areas are added, such as the
establishment of training curricula and access to venture capital, then their rating
would most likely support an incubator project.

14 to 18 points

Critical mass ratings within this category indicate that some of the critical mass
structures are in place, but an incubator would need the support of a primary
facility. Thus, this category is suitable for a “satellite facility” only.

13 points and below

Areas falling within this category do not possess critical mass structures to support
a business incubator. It would be extremely cost-ineffective to develop the
necessary structures to boost these ratings.

Based on the analysis, Chatham County’s score of 26 indicates that it is an appropriate site for a
business incubator of its own. The strongest segment of the Critical Mass Rating is the local support
for business development, which had a score of 14 out 14 available points. The weakest areas of this
Total Critical Mass Rating were in the technical core and target sector establishments factors.
 83

Logistics Technology and Innovation Center: A Value Proposition

The findings of this study serve to articulate the value proposition that can be offered through a
university-led Logistics Technology and Innovation Center (LTIC), a center that supports the logistics
technology and innovation investment activity engaged in by the Savannah Logistics Technology and
Innovation Corridor (SLTIC) group. This value proposition hinges on a university’s ability to leverage
established capabilities in three distinct areas—research, educational programming and outreach
activity, and deploy them across initiatives focused on the advancement of logistics technology and
innovation. The LTIC, though uniquely designed programming and activity, can engage in the
development, harnessing, and dissemination of logistics technology-based knowledge and know-how
that serves an ecosystem of stakeholders that included entrepreneurs, corporate entities, students,
academic researchers, investors and governmental entities.

Selected as the lead academic institution for the SLTIC initiative, Georgia Southern University is aptly
positioned to lead the research, educational, and outreach activities of the LTIC in coordination and
partnership with various other educational institutions engaged in the SLTIC initiative. Georgia
Southern University’s unique positioning to provide leadership through the LTIC is hinged on (i)
institution-specific capabilities and resources that are applicable to various logistics technology- and
innovation-based activities and (ii) the institution’s positioning to coordinate with various other
educational institutions with adjacent and complementary capabilities. Various factors contribute to
Georgia Southern University’s unique positioning to lead effective LTIC programming. Among these
factors are established and thriving basic and applied research programs across various academic
disciplines that are central to logistics technology and innovation advancement (Deloitte 2017);
undergraduate and graduate degree offerings in fields that are critical talent sources to technology
and innovation in a supply chain areas (Deloitte 2017); and outreach centers and programs that connect
industry and various university personnel to provide general value for industry stakeholders.

RESEARCH AND OUTREACH CAPABILITIES

Various facets of research and outreach activity at Georgia Southern University position the institution
to contribute human capital and coordinate LTIC-related research programming. Faculty members in
the Parker College of Business’s Logistics and Supply Chain Management (LSCM) Department
conducts research across the activities that comprise supply chain management, i.e., sourcing,
manufacturing and production, distribution, transportation, customer service, and information systems,
from both empirical and quantitative modeling methodological approaches. The LSCM Department
has been consistently ranked in the top 25 empirical research programs globally on an annual basis by
the SCM Journal List since the ranking’s inception in 2015; with the LSCM faculty ranked 16th globally in
2020 (SCM Journal List 2019). Various other faculty members in the Marketing, Enterprise Systems
and Analytics, and various other departments in the Parker College of Business conduct research that
readily contributes to the advancement of knowledge and thought leadership that can directly
contribute to LTIC-based research initiatives.

Further, the aforementioned scholastic activity occurs simultaneous to the outreach activity of various
centers housed in the Parker College of Business. These centers include the BIG, which focuses on
 84
developing an entrepreneurial and innovative ecosystem through activities and programs within the
CBAER, the Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership (CELL), and the SBDC. The Southern
Center for Logistics and Intermodal Transportation (SCLIT), housed within the Department of LSCM,
through education, research and outreach activity, aims to serve and equip transportation, logistics,
and supply chain management students, professionals, and organizations with the knowledge and tools
necessary to develop and implement programs and solutions that advance and improve supply chain
practice. This is achieved through the conducting of industry-sponsored applied research projects,
supply chain workshops, experiential learning programs and other industry-centric programming. It is
also worth noting that the program is one of only ten programs nationwide designated as an
Intermodal Association of North America (IANA) scholarship school, a unique distinction
(Intermodal.org 2020).

Housed within the Department of Marketing, the Center for Sales Excellence (CSE) supports and
promotes students pursuing careers in sales. Through dedicated labs and programming, students
engage in experiential learning activities for students in collaboration with industry partners with
students annually competing at national sales events. The SCE’s impact was observed when the Sales
Education Foundation (SEF) recognizing Georgia Southern University’s Center for Sales Excellence as
a “Top University Sales Program” for 2019. (Salesfoundation.org 2020). Additionally, the Center for
Retail Studies (CRS), also directed through the Department of Marketing aims, to facilitate student
exposure the many facets of the retail industry by supporting engagement in competitions,
conferences, and workshops like the National Retail Foundation’s “Big Show” in New York City and the
Shop.Org Annual Summit. Each of the aforementioned centers plays a key role informing and
maintaining established industry partners and initiatives that not only can continue to serve and add
value for students, faculty, and practitioners alike but, through coordinated collaboration, can also add
immense value to the outreach activity engaged in by the LTIC.

Complimentary to scholastic and outreach activities at the Parker College of Business, and of
significance, the faculty of the Allen E. Paulson College of Engineering and Computing conducts a
wide scope of research activity that can serve as a direct conduit to logistics technology and
innovation research programming of the LTIC. Operationalized through productive research labs,
engineering faculty members engage in highly impactful research utilizing a variety of laboratories
located in the college.
Figure 17: Allen E. Paulson College of Engineering & Computing Laboratories

• Antennas and Wireless Propagation Laboratory

• Automation, Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing Laboratory
• Building Environment and Modeling (BEaM) Laboratory
• Digital Surface Imaging Laboratory
• Manufacturing (Solid Modeling, CNC, 3D Scan/Print) Laboratory
• Materials Research Laboratory
• Nanocomposite Material Science Laboratory
• Optical Network and Smart Grid (ONSmart) Laboratory
• Renewable Energy and Engines Laboratory
• Robotics and Intelligent Operation Systems (RIOS) Laboratory
• Electrical Engineering Lab
 85

Additionally, the Engineering & Research building, currently under construction, is scheduled to house
activity aimed at engaging in applied research projects to support manufacturing and industrial activity
in Georgia. The facility will house labs for research, learning and production that include an industrial
instrumentation & controls lab, a materials characterization lab, a nanomaterials and manufacturing lab
and a renewable energy roof deck lab for solar, wind, and weather, among others. Additional areas of
expertise of Georgia Southern University faculty members, as it relates to the logistics technology and
innovation can be found in Appendix F.

In addition, the university has convened a multi-disciplinary faculty research committee to assess its
strengths and place them in conjunction with the needs of the region. Over the past ten months, the
committee members have pulled data and conducted interviews across campus to outline certain focus
areas within which the university has the strength and expertise to serve to attract additional external
resources and attention to the region. Given the prominent role logistics and manufacturing play in
Georgia Southern’s academic offerings, the committee is currently exploring the inclusion of
innovation, manufacturing and supply chains as a key research focal area. According to recent internal
data collection on funded grants, 25 projects have been funded for a total of $1.58 million over the past
three years under this focal area. Research topics that were most successful in securing funding under
this category were advanced manufacturing engineering, artificial intelligence, material sciences, and
small business innovations. A list of current research topics related to this area can be found in
Appendix G.

The collective existence of the aforementioned research and outreach activities at Georgia Southern
University lends itself to the application of expertise and resources to the advancement of logistics
technology and innovation knowledge in a manner that effectively impacts logistics technology
practice and insightfully informs innovation development efforts across the sourcing, manufacturing
and distribution functions within supply chains.

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING CAPABILITIES

Of critical importance to any technology and innovation hub strategy and to planning is the existence
of, and access to, a highly qualified talent pool. The LTIC, dues to its geographic context, not only is
positioned to leverage the talent developed across the expansive group of high-quality institutions of
higher education and pertinent degree program offerings within University of Georgia System but with
Georgia Southern University being the lead institution for the SLTIC, is also positioned to access and
engage students in degree programs offered at the university that have been identified as being
central to LSCM technology activity (Deloitte 2017). Georgia Southern University offers undergraduate
and graduate programs in business, engineering, computer science, and mathematical sciences—all
areas of study from which the human capital upon which technological and innovation advances are
built is drawn.

Through the Parker College of Business, undergraduate degree programs are offered in supply chain
management with either a logistics or operations concertation; information systems with emphases in
either business intelligence, enterprise resource planning or enterprise security; management; and
 86
marketing. The college also offers graduate level programs in business administration (MBA), applied
economics, and a doctoral program in logistics and supply chain management. The Allen E. Paulson
College of Engineering and Computing offers undergraduate degrees in computer engineering,
computer science, electrical engineering, information technology, manufacturing engineering, and
mechanical engineering. The college also offers master’s degrees in applied engineering, computer
science, electrical engineering, information technology, and mechanical engineering. Further, and of
central importance to technology and innovation activity. The Department of Mathematical Sciences
offers undergraduate degrees in mathematics and mathematical sciences and a master’s degree with
concentrations in mathematics and statistics.

The diversity and breadth of program offerings at Georgia Southern University offers the opportunity
for the LTIC to draw from a highly contextually relevant talent pool in pursuit of its programming
objectives and initiatives. Logistics technology startups, corporations, and research institutions
involved in LTIC programs can recruit from amongst the wide range of trained graduates that Georgia
Southern University’s diversity of offerings facilitates.

LTIC AGENDA AND APPROACH

A synthesis of the findings of this research, derived from conducted overviews of the relevance of
logistics, logistics technology development, logistics technology investment activity, logistics
technology markets, the Georgia and Savannah logistics and technology markets, and stakeholder
interviews, leads to the identification of niches of programmatic foci that can differentiate the LTIC’s
value proposition and its market relevance. These programmatic foci emerge based on (i) the
fragmented and long tailed nature of the logistics industry; (ii) the resulting fragmented or niche
approaches, with exception, to technology solutions development within the logistics function; (iii) the
geographically unique context of the Savannah market area and the specificity of logistics activity-type
it engenders; and (iv) the unique positioning of Georgia Southern University to leverage its various
institutional capabilities in the context of the aforementioned factors and create value-added
programming that advances logistics technology development and innovation diffusion in a highly
differentiated manner.

In establishing a position that indexes to the unique attributes on the Savannah Corridor’s logistics
ecosystem, an LTIC can focus its programming and activities on advancing knowledge and
development of both sustaining and disruptive technologies in thematic areas that can include, but are
not limited to, (i) port operations, (ii) intermodal supply chains, (iii) freight transportation and mobility,
(iv) warehousing and fulfillment center operations, (v) small-to-medium size manufacturing, and (vi)
technology hardware manufacturing. Each of the aforementioned thematic areas represent operational
spheres in which the Savannah corridor area has already-existing density of practitioner expertise, high
levels of operational capabilities, and high levels of business activity—a context that readily lends itself
to organized collaborative efforts in research, education, and outreach activity aimed at identifying and
developing logistics technology-based insights, solutions development, and commercialization
opportunities. In utilizing its capabilities in research, educational programming, and outreach, a
university-led LTIC can engage these capabilities in each of the identified thematic areas, and drive
significant value for SLTIC stakeholders.
 87

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Trends in logistics and advances in technology point to a strong potential for success and future
growth of logistics technology. Though the Savannah MSA rates lower than its peers in many economic
measures, two areas resonate with experts and point to the establishment of a strong foundation: (i)
the presence of the Port and (ii) a higher concentration of software developers than peer communities.

When logistics technology experts were asked to rate factors deemed important to the development
of the logistics technology corridor, they cited a strong transportation system, ample technical talent,
and access to capital as the three highest rated contributors. The presence of the Port was frequently
seen as a key contributor to the future development of the corridor. That said, what would need to be
clarified is the specific nature in which the Port could contribute to fostering innovation
.
Another key component of innovation frequently cited was the importance of a talent pipeline. Though
universities (like Georgia Southern) are engaged in research activities that contribute to the
development of a focal area in innovation, manufacturing and supply chain, the largest value cited by
experts is the role universities can play in developing and maintaining the talent pipeline. It is in this
vein that universities can serve as key contributors to ensuring that companies in this sector are able to
grow/replenish their talent workforces.

Though the establishment of a BRIDGE Fund is viewed as a step in the right direction, the ability to
facilitate access to customers, more specifically, key decision makers was frequently cited as a limiting
factor. Many experts stated that, as currently structured, entrepreneurs would have difficulty in
“landing clients.”

As in the case of Greenville, SC, the high research output of nearby Clemson University could be seen
as an accelerant to the growth of the automotive technology sector. But, upon closer inspection, the
development of innovation activities in automotive technology is really about the connection and
relationship with automaker BMW. Of course, the research capabilities of the university contributed to
BMW's decision to invest in the region, but the research in and of itself was not the driving factor. The
true value was the relationship with corporations that come with the research. The same could be said
for Augusta, GA, where the U.S. Army Cyber Command serves the role as the corporate stakeholder
with the ability to serve as a consumer of services.

Although the relationships with corporate stakeholders was identified as a key factor in the
development of the logistics technology corridor, it should be pointed out that the distance among key
stakeholders should also be considered. As determined by Alfred Marshall in his agglomeration theory,
the concentration of business activity can have a positive effect on the economy (Marshall 1920). This
can manifest itself through the sharing of resources, movement of labor, knowledge spillover, etc. This
positive effect can be amplified if the members of the network are located within close proximity of
each other, as opposed to being dispersed across a region. In fact, researchers found that, if members
of an innovation network are located within one mile of each other, the rate of innovation can be 10 to
 88
1,000 greater than if they were two to five miles apart (Lawrence, Hogan and Brown 2019). Beyond
that, a high degree of dispersion had no measurable effect on innovation.

Of interest to note is that, among industry experts, the presence of a technology incubator and
economic incentives rated seventh and eighth, respectively, in terms of perceived importance. That
said, similar to established networks in peer communities, a technology incubator could serve as a
catalyst for innovation. As in the peer communities, the technology incubator serves as a convening
location that connects members of the innovation network. A review of the critical mass index suggests
that Savannah has the key factors to establish a facility dedicated to logistics technology. Should a
facility be sought, it is recommended that a phased approach similar to Chattanooga be adopted. The
targeted size for the facility should be between 8,000 and 20,000 square feet, and the facility ought
to be planned to be placed within a larger innovation district with key attributes of placemaking in
mind. The effort should be focused on strengthening connections within the innovation network and
must facilitate access to corporations. Without the corporate connections, the ability of the incubator
to serve the needs of potential clients could greatly limit the incubator’s capabilities and attractiveness.

The interviews with experts echoed a review of other efforts, whereby economic incentives, though
mentioned as a factor, seemed to play a lesser role in spurring innovation activity. The role of an
institution of higher education, though a key factor, is seen as less important than the engagement of
strong corporate partners. For example, in Jacksonville, a city considerably larger than Savannah, the
sustained development of an innovation district has struggled. Though UNF is making significant
investments in fostering entrepreneurship, the lack of key corporate engagement is often cited as a
factor hampering previous efforts to move the innovation efforts forward.

If the Savannah Logistics Technology Corridor is to develop the kind of attractiveness centered on the
placemaking dynamics of other innovation districts, it needs to have the active involvement of major
corporate partners to facilitate knowledge transfer and serve as potential customers to new
companies. The limited presence of investment capital in the region could be overcome by fostering
close relationships with corporate decision makers operating within proximity of each other’s network
members. By developing a more densely concentrated area for logistics technology companies and
focusing on placemaking to build a sense of place, the ensuing effort could serve to entice residents to
work longer hours and extend opportunities to collaborate with corporate partners (Lawrence, Hogan
and Brown 2019). Through the designing and building of an environment in which people want to be,
the effort to attract skilled works and foster innovation could have a positive long-term effect on the
development of the logistics technology corridor.

As the largest external shock to the U.S. economy in a generation, the COVID-19 pandemic and the
corresponding economic shutdown has impacted millions of American lives, including tens of
thousands of workers in Georgia. This event, unprecedented in the modern era, is having unseen
effects across all sectors and industries. The effects of the pandemic are already changing the way
society functions, from how employees interact in the workplace to how goods and services move
through the supply chain. The potential for these changes to alter existing business processes and
create new opportunities for logistics technology remains to be seen. Either way, the long-term
outlook for the Savannah Logistics Technology Corridor remains positive.
 89

Appendix A: Logistics Developments & Advancements

Logistics Technology and Innovation: Developments and Advancements

Accounting for 8% of the U.S.’s $20.5 trillion GDP for 2018, logistics costs reflected the growth in e-
commerce activity, changes in fuel prices, and gains in technology driven efficiencies—all helping to
drive increased activity in the third-party logistics (3PL), freight forwarding, motor carrier, rail,
intermodal and air freight modes of transportation (Kearney 2019). Ever evolving dynamics surrounding
global trade, regulation, environmental sustainability, consumer behavior, energy prices and business
operations and margin management pressures, logistics has been catapulted to the forefront of many,
and almost any, discussion involving gaining efficiency and effectiveness across organization
operations.

As defined by the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP),

logistics is that part of supply chain management that plans, implements, and controls the efficient,
effective forward and reverses flow and storage of goods, services and related information between
the point of origin and the point of consumption in order to meet customers’ requirements (CSMCP
2020).

The managerial activities conducted in the execution of logistics often includes materials handling,
production, inventory management, warehousing, packaging, production, security, compliance,
information systems, and transportation. As an industry, logistics is very diverse, comprising firms that
provide services that include air freight services, pipeline logistics, order management, fleet
management, contract manufacturing, inventory management, container yard management,
warehousing management, various modes of transportation services, and information technology and
technology services, among others.

Globally, the logistics industry is believed to generally account for 12% of world GDP (Maiden 2020). In
2018, the global logistics market was $9.6 trillion, with trucking accounting for 43% of total logistics
costs globally, according to consulting firm Armstrong & Associates Inc. (Maiden 2020). The firm
estimates that global logistics costs will continue to grow at a more than 5% compounded annual
growth rate through 2023. The industry grew at an average rate of 15% per year, post the financial
crisis in 2008 through 2014, with market capitalization for leading companies growing from $414 billion
to approximately $960 billion in the same period (World Economic Forum 2016)

Moving ahead, various market trends will significantly influence the logistics industry and operations
and drive its growing prominence. Significant growth of the customer base is projected, with the world
population expected to grow to 9 billion individuals by 2050 with smart phone subscriptions, enabling
e-commerce, expected to double to 4 billion by 2025 (World Economic Forum 2016). Demographic
shifts will also place increased demands on the logistics industry and its functions. It is projected that
two-thirds of the world’s population will inhabit cities by 2050, with 41 megacities dispersed globally,
each comprised of at least 10 million inhabitants (World Economic Forum 2016).
 90
These demographics will have implications as consumers continue to increase their levels of online
purchases, having an enormous impact on the global parcel logistics industry. Simultaneously,
geopolitical and economic dynamics continue to impact vast global logistics network operations. Highly
energy dependent, though changes are occurring regarding this, the industry is highly susceptible to
production regulation by the Organization of Petroleum-Exporting Countries (OPEC). It is also
impacted by the dynamic within and between economic unions that include the United-States-Mexico-
Canada Agreements (USMCA), the European Union (EU), and the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN). Add the pressures related to environmental sustainability-based stipulations makes
the potential implications of the logistics industry’s regulatory dynamics evident. Technologies like the
Internet, marketplace platforms, additive manufacturing, and autonomous vehicles, among others, set
the scenario for a global operating network that is poised for disruption, disruption driven by
technologies that are projected to influence the redesign and restructuring of global logistics
networks. On a global scale, investor interest in this disruption was evident in the increase in funds
dedicated to logistics software startups between 2010 and 2015 from $40 million to $200 million
(World Economic Forum 2016).

In the United States, increases in e-commerce are driving significant growth in intermodal shipments
and a commensurate increase in contract logistics purchasing last-mile delivery services (Kearney
2019). It is worth noting that the e-commerce phenomenon is also spiking activity in real estate
investing with real estate companies and retailers investing in urban area-adjacent smaller format
warehouses (Kearney 2019). The logistics industry is estimated to generally account for 10% of GDP;
2018 business logistics costs exceeded $1.6 trillion with approximately two-thirds of those costs
attributable to transportation and 30% ascribed to inventory costs (Maiden 2020). Trucking commands
the largest proportion of logistics spending in the U.S., with growth in e-commerce propelling parcel
transportation to the second spot, followed by rail, which accounted for 8% of U.S. transportation
spending in 2018 (Maiden 2020). Outsourcing logistics activity has increased significantly in the U.S.,
with the U.S. 3PL market almost doubling 2009 gross revenue levels to $214 billion in 2018 (Maiden
2020). The highest revenue logistics services companies in the U.S. for 2018, in descending order, were
XPO Logistics ($6.1B), UPS Supply Chain Solutions ($4.7B), DHL Supply Chain ($3.8B), J.B. Hunt
Transportation Services ($2.9B), C.H. Robinson Worldwide ($2.7B), Ryder Supply Chain Solutions
($2.6B), Expeditors International of Washington ($2.6B), Penske Logistics ($1.8B), Lineage
Logistics($1.8B) and NFI ($1.7B) (Maiden 2020).

Research indicates that, with strategic priorities focused on product development and innovations,
many firms, aware of the differentiating effect of efficient and effective logistics operations, are
increasingly relying on third parties to manage their logistics and supply chain operations. This is
particularly true for those with higher levels of information technology and technological capabilities
(Kearney 2019). Both shippers and third-party logistics service providers are investing increasing
amounts of money into technologies that support operational and efficiency gains across their logistics
networks. Of note, the “uberization” of freight, the last mile and yard, artificial intelligence and machine
learning, autonomous trucking, blockchain, and clean energy have been technology-based themes that
came to the forefront in Kearney’s “2019 State of Logistics Report.” Due to the pervasive and extensive
nature of logistics operations as well as the wide range of industries and sectors the function impacts,
investments in logistics technology in the United States within the past decade has spawned a
spectrum of modes, processes, and niches. These investments include technologies and innovations
 91
focused on parking, embedded systems, autonomous technologies, aftermarket services, fleet
management, ocean, rail, robotics and drones, warehousing, electronic logging devices, telematics,
mapping, platooning, multimodal, ridesharing, smart cities, digital brokerage, car sharing, and supply
chain analytics.

Research by DHL in 2018 (Bubner, Helbig and Jeske 2018) on the state of logistics technology
identified various social and business trends that are shaping and influencing the development of
logistics technology. The report identified technologies that are driving significant changes to logistics
operations and processes and reviewed best practices and use cases for these trends and
technologies. Similar studies were conducted by the World Economic Forum in 2016, in collaboration
with Accenture, which conducted a study on the digital transformation of the logistics industry. The
study identifies market trends that shape the technology trends observed in the logistics industry. It
also identifies various digital themes and the associated digital initiatives engendered by each and
assesses the digital value of identified technology disruptions. The two studies are among several
logistics technology-based reports that have examined the logistics technology landscape, often
focusing on a particular geographic region, logistics process, activity, or service offering area. These
studies focus on logistics workplace technology (Front 2019), the logistics information technology
marketplace (Inbound Logistics 2019), logistics operations technologies (EFT 2019), warehousing
technologies (Rogers, Rabinovich and Simmerman 2017), logistics technology dynamics within a specific
geographic region (Technology Association of Georgia 2020), niches within the logistics industry
(PriceWaterhouseCoopers 2016), and online shopper-driven logistics technology implications (UPS
2019).

A synthesis of these studies indicates that various social trends induce demand for logistics
technologies. These trends include batch size one, connected life, digital work, fair and responsible
logistics, fresh chain, green energy logistics, grey power logistics, logistics marketplaces, omnichannel
logistics, servitization, sharing economy, smart containerization, supergrid logistics and tube logistics.
Table A1 describes each of these trends and provides examples of logistics applications and use cases
their influence has induced. Across the studies, the technologies that are impacting logistics
operations and processes in distinct ways are identified. These technologies include 3D printing,
artificial intelligence, augmented reality, big data analytics, bionic enhancement, blockchain, cloud
logistics, Internet of things, low cost sensor solutions, next-generation wireless, robotics and
automation, autonomous vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and virtual reality and virtual twins. Table
A1 describes each of these technologies and provides examples of logistics applications and use case
instances in which they are being leveraged.
 92
Table A1: Social and Business Trends Influencing Logistics Technology Development
Logistics Applications and Use
Trend Description
Cases
The economically efficient manufacturing of highly Adidas – Speed Factory
customized products. This trend is driven by increases in Homag – Furniture
Batch Size One consumer demand for personalized products. Fraunhofer IPT – Medical Products
Technologies are leveraged to bring the production Siemens – Wood Industry
process as close to the consumer as possible. Software Automation - Apparel
Amazon - Key
The connection devices, gadgets, machinery, and other
DHL and Daimler - SMART
physical objects and entities with the aim of facilitating
Connected Life DHL and Amazon - Alexa
communication and sharing of information between
LG - Smart Fridges
these physical objects.
Kwik – Automated Replenishment
The facilitation of workplaces not bound to any physical Blue Prism – RPA
Digital Work space but enable collaboration regardless of employee Kaggle – Data Analytics
location. Jobdoh – On-Demand Labor
The commitment by business organizations to ensure HP – Printer Cartridge Recycling
Fair and
that simultaneous to pursuing economic profit, the H&M – LongLiveFashion
Responsible
pursuit social and environmental benefits are also EcoATM – Recycling Kiosk
Logistics
objectives. UnPackt – Zero Packaging Waste
The emergence of a significant growth in consumer
demand for fresh produce, groceries and Fresh Turf – Food Delivery Lockers
pharmaceuticals, especially through online shopping; HealthCareatHOME – Medication
Fresh Chain
which is impacting global food supply chains and Zipdrug – Medicine Delivery
requiring improved capabilities in fulfillment,
temperature control, and delivery.
The ever-increasing shift towards energy efficiency, Volvo – Electric and Hybrid
renewable, or alternative forms of energy to facilitate DHL Street Scooter – Electric Vans
Green Energy
responsible environmental management. This requires Tesla – Electric Auto Pilot Trucks
Logistics
logistics decision-makers ensure logistics activity is Qilu Group – Solar Energy
“environmentally-friendly” as possible. Google Project Sunroof – Solar
EffizienzCluster – Elderly Care
Hometeam – Home Care Startup
The phenomenon regarding the development of
Grey Power 7-Eleven Japan – Home Delivery
logistics services tailored to the specific needs of
Logistics Seismic – Exoskeletal Support
members of an aging society.
Silvernest – Home Sharing App
Uber Health – Delivery and Transport

INTTRA – Ocean Shipping

The provision of online marketplace for shippers, carriers,
DHL Saloodo! – End-to-End Freight
brokers, suppliers, and stakeholders to conduct logistics
Logistics Market Flexport – Online Freight Forwarding
services buying and selling activity. These platforms have
Places iContainers – Ocean Pricing and
been said to improve transparency, flexibility, and
Forwarding
competitive dynamics.
FLEXE – Cloud-based Warehousing Space

The emergence of the synchronizing of transportation, Jack and Jones – Online Fulfillment
inventory management, warehousing and distribution Taykit – Customer Experience
Omnichannel
activities across sales channels in an effort to meet ZigZag – Returns Services
Logistics
consumer demand and facilitate a seamless shopping Shutl – Fulfillment and Last Mile
experience. John Lewis – Shopping Services
 93
The occurrence of manufacturing and production firms to Rolls Royce “Power-by-the-Hour” – Engine
sell services rather than just products. The concept Services
involves bundling products with services that result in the Michelin Fleet Solutions – “Pay-by-
selling of outcomes when using the product i.e. selling Kilometer”
Servitization
“outcomes-as-a-service.” The concept is revolutionizing Philips “Lighting-as-a-Service” – Energy
the manufacturing business model with the product now Affordability
being the manufactured product with supplemental Ricoh – Pay-per-Copy
additional services. Van Der Lande – Pay-per-Baggage Service
Park Circa – On-Demand Parking
The economic model in which good and services are
Zipline – Idle Vehicle Access App
acquired and shared through peer-to-peer exchanges
Tamyca – Online Car Sharing Portal
facilitated by community-based online platforms.
Sharing Economy Floow2 – Asset Sharing and Trading
Without transfer of ownership, underutilized goods or
Wonolo – On-Demand Logistics Workers
services are shared through an intermediary in a
Parcelly – Space Repurposing for Storage
commercial or non-commercial context.
The equipping of containers with smart sensors or
devices that facilitate customizing flow processes based
DHL Cubicycle – Last Mile Containers
Smart of factors that include the contents of the container,
Bosch – Connected Containers
Containerization compliance requirements, and consumer or market-
P&G – Modularized Packaging
related demands; while maintaining visibility though the
entirety of the process.
SAP One World Logistics – Online Logistics
Logistics platforms or systems aimed at orchestrating
Collaboration Platform
logistics activity across vast and complex global supply
Supergrid Logistics China Smart Logistics Network – e-
chain networks through the integration of several
commerce-enabling Logistics Platform
manufacturing and logistics service provider networks.
LOGICAL - InterLogGrid
High speed transportation systems in which passengers
Hyperloop Technologies
or cargo are carried in a tube characterized by a low-
Tube Logistics Mole Solutions – Underground Freight
pressure environment containing a capsule that is upheld
Pipeline Systems
by magnetic levitation.
Adopted from Bubner et al. (2018)

Table A2: Technology Trends Impacting Logistics Operations and Processes
Trend Description
Also referred to as additive manufacturing, it comprises
the process of producing 3-dimensional objects from a
digital file. Objects are printed through an additive
3D Printing process in which successive layers of material are added
until the product is finalized. The process utilizes
significantly less material than conventional
manufacturing methods.
The process by which machines (computers) learn from
experience while performing human-like tasks and, due
to that learning, are able to adjust to new inputs from
Artificial the environment. AI-based algorithms are able to make
Intelligence decisions based on real-time data and are capable of
reaching to conclusions based on instant analysis of
input data that facilitates the machine perceiving its
environment.
The use of technology to superimpose information or
virtual objects; which can include text, sound, or images;
Augmented Reality on the visible environment. Elements of the real-world
environment are enhanced by computer-generated
input during an interactive experience.
The use of advanced methods to examine large sets of
unstructured data to determine specific information in
Big Data Analytics the form of hidden patterns, unknown correlations,
market trends and consumer preferences. It is applied
to inform decision-making.
The process by which human physical and cognitive
Bionic functions and capabilities are enhanced through human-
Enhancement machine interaction. They are utilized when expanding
the boundaries of current physical barriers are required.
A time-stamped series of immutable records of data
managed by a decentralized cluster of computers (no
one entity owns the information solely). It refers to a
Blockchain digital ledger consisting of records, referred to as
blocks, used to record transactions across many
computers. No block of information [transaction] can be
altered retroactively.
Cloud computing-enabled “Logistics-as-a-service”
business models offering customizable logistics
Cloud Logistics solutions that can include transportation planning,
transportation execution, fleet management and
logistics network modeling, among other services.
94
Use Cases
Kazzata – 3D printing Spare Parts
Marketplace
Daimler – 3D Printing-as-a-Service
Carbon – High-Speed 3D Printing
HP JetFusion – In-House 3D Printing
Fast Radius – Inventory Management
Thingiverse – Object File Repository
Google Deep Mind – AI
IBM Watson – AI
Nvidia – Vehicle AI Solutions
Facebook DeepFace – Facial Recognition
Leverton – Real Estate Contract AI Solutions
Amazon – Product Recommendation
Qopius – Warehouse Inventory Computer
Vision Solutions
AVRL – Conversational AI Solutions for
Logistics
Ubimax – Wearing Computing for
Warehousing, Manufacturing and Service
Operations
Microsoft – Hololens Mixed Reality Devices
Epson – BT-2000 AR Devices
Volkswagon – MARTA AR
Toyota Augmented Reality Windshields
Boeing – Assembly with Smart Glasses
Lenovo – AR Smartphone
Google – ARCore Application
Amazon – Anticipatory Shipping
DHL SmartTruck – Route Optimization
Transmetrics – Transportation Predictive
Analytics
ClearMetal – Supply Chain Visibility Analytics
Thalmic Labs Myo – Gesture Control
Scarab – Wearable Device for Tracking
RoboMate EU – Assistance Suit
Harvard University – Soft Exosuits
BMW – 3D Printed Thumb Shields
Samsung Lens – Smart Contact Lenses
Maersk and IBM – End-to-end Digitization
for Ocean Shipping Documentation and
Processes
ZIM – Ocean Freight Bill-of-Lading
Digitization
Walmart – End-to-End Track and Tracing for
Food Security
DHL and Accenture – Pharmaceutical
Serialization
BiTA – Block chain in Transport Alliance
Shipwire Enterprise Logistics Platform
LogFire Cloud Solutions
Transporean – Cloud-managed Logistics
Services
Salesforce – Cloud-based Services

The interconnection, via the Internet, of computing
devices embedded in everyday objects, enabling them
to send and receive data. Each object is represented by
Internet of Things a unique identifier (UID) and has the capability of
transferring data within a network of connected devices
absent of the need for human-to-human or human-to-
computer interaction.
The use of sensors, through sensing technology, to
Low Cost Sensor harness information through detection of physical,
Solutions chemical, or biological properties and transform them
into quantifiable and readable signals.
Known as 5G technology, it is the next iteration [5th
generation] of mobile broadband wireless technologies.
Next-Generation It facilitates the faster transmission of larger data
Wireless streams, is more reliable in extreme conditions, and can
support a wider range of devices, sensors and
wearables.
Robotics refers to the process of designing,
constructing, and operating machines controlled by an
internal or external computer, capable of executing a
complex series of movements automatically. Software
Robotics and
automation occurs when computer tasks that would
Automation
otherwise be performed by humans are done by
software. Industrial automation occurs when tasks that
would otherwise be performed by humans are done
through software.
Self-driving vehicles capable of driving themselves from
Autonomous an origin point to a predetermined destination in
Vehicles “autopilot” mode utilizing a combination of in-vehicle
technologies and sensors.
Also referred to as drones, these aircraft carry no
Unmanned Aerial human pilot or passengers. Often controlled remotely
Vehicles by a human pilot, UAVs can be fully or partially
autonomous.
Refers to the process by which computer technology is
utilized to create a simulated environment. The
simulated environment can be similar or different from
Virtual Reality and
the real world. A virtual twin refers to a digital
Virtual Twins
representation of the elements of a physical object or
entity. It is a virtual model of a process, product or
service.
Adopted from Bubner et al. (2018), World Economic Forum (2016), Inbound Logistics (2019) and UPS (2020)
Various other studies provide further insights into the demand for logistics technology services and
solutions. In a 2019 study focused on logistics technology trends and conducted by Front, a workplace
communication platform software company 413 decision makers in the transportation and logistics
industry participated. Of the firms represented, 77% indicated they have digitized their operations, and
95
Freightly – Real-time Transportation
Solutions
Agheera – IoT Platform for Logistics
Kwik – IoT-enabled ordering
BeeBright – Warehouse Lighting
DHL and Cisco – Warehousing IoT
Volvo – Maintenance on Demand
Intel RealSense – 3D Cameras with Sensing
BIBA Bremen – Intelligent Image Processing
Metrilus – Real-Time Freight Dimensioning
Aquifi – 3D Computer Vision Devices
Scandit – Advanced Bar Code Scanning
Applications for Devices
Hyco –Scanning-capability for Small Devices
Sigfox – Global IoT Network with Long-
Range Wide Area Technologies
DHL and Huawei – Smart Yard Management
with NB-IoT
Rethink Robotics – Collaborative Humanoid
Robots
Locus Robotics – Mobile Robots with
Swarm Intelligence
Geek Plus – Autonomous Mobile Racking
Systems
Tesla Semi – Semi-Autonomous Vehicles
NAVYA – Fully Autonomous and Electric
Vehicles
DAF – Truck Platooning
Effidence – Warehouse Picking Assistance
Google – Waymo Driverless Cars
Amazon Prime Air – Tilt Wing Drones
Walmart – Intra-facility Drone Delivery
PINC – Inventory Management
DHL Parcelcopter – Tilt Wing Drones to
Deliver
Toyota – Simulated Training for Forklift
Drivers
Bosch – Digital Twin for Vehicle Odometers
GE – Manufacturing and Supply Chain
Process Digital Twins
Assaults Systemes – Digital Twins in Urban
Planning
 96
81% intend to increase spending on software over the next two years. Of note, 84% of respondents
indicated interest in introducing some form of automation into their supply chain (Front 2019). Inbound
Logistics conducted its 2019 Logistics IT Market Research Survey, an annual study. Asked to identify
which factors are driving demand for logistics IT services, respondents indicated that e-commerce,
omnichannel retail, blockchain, warehousing management needs, freight bidding needs, real-time
location determination needs, data integration needs, business intelligence needs, and the need to
increase automation were drivers.

Regarding the industries served by the logistics IT provider respondent firms, 93% served the
transportation industry, followed by 82% for manufacturing, then retail and wholesale at 79% and 76%,
respectively, e-commerce was next with 68% of respondents indicating they served the industry and
was followed by services and government industries at 50%. Asked to identify the logistics challenges
that were most critical to their customers, respondents indicated, in descending order of importance,
that cost reduction (85%); visibility (73%); data management (64%); transport optimization (59%);
customer service (57%); e-commerce and omnichannel enablement (44%); inventory management
(41%); vendor management (38%); security (26%); risk management (23%); labor (23%); demand
forecasting (22%); global expansion (22%); and sustainability (17%) were most important to their
customers. The aforementioned provides insights into the areas investments are more probable to be
allocated to given more importance to the logistics operations of logistics IT provider customers.
Asked to identify which logistics solutions they offer to service the needs of their customers,
respondents indicated their firms offered solutions in the areas of optimization (72%); transportation
management systems (61%); routing and scheduling (60%); load planning (50%); rating and bidding
(50%); audit, claims, and payments (46%); reverse logistics (46%); inventory management (44%);
wireless and mobile (39%); procurement (38%); warehouse management systems (31%); yard
management systems (23%); labor management (21%); and radio frequency identification (19%)
(Inbound Logistics 2019).

Yet another study, EFT’s “2019 State of Logistics Technology Report,” conducted an in-depth
analysis of logistics technology usage patterns, preferences, and trends across the industry. The study
entailed engaging with more than 500 professionals working with logistics service providers (47% of
respondents), technology solutions providers (33%), and retailers or manufacturers (20% of
respondents) predominantly based in North America. Asked to identify which technologies their
respective firms are planning to invest in over the next 12 months, respondents indicated, in order of
highest proportion of responses indicating an intention to invest, that business intelligence,
transportation management, warehouse management, and visibility technological solutions were
priority. These solutions were followed by inventory management, customer relationship, forecasting,
Internet of things, predictive analytics, big data, and data interchange solutions. When asked who was
most driving the need for innovation in logistics technology, respondents noted that change was
driven mostly by shippers (42%), logistics providers (35%) and solutions providers (23%). Of note,
asked which disruptive technologies will have the most impact on the industry within the next 12 to 18
months, respondents indicated that the Internet of things, artificial intelligence, blockchain, and robotic
process automation, in that order, stand to have the most impact. Asked the same question, but
extending the time horizon for impact to five years, participants indicated that the technologies that
will have the most significant impact on the industry are artificial intelligence (46%), blockchain (29%),
Internet of things (16%), robotic process automation (5%), and other technologies (4%) (EFT 2019).
 97

Of note, in its 2019 study, Front asked respondents to indicate the logistics software systems
they currently used and which software solutions they planned to implement in the next five years.
Observing the responses lends itself to identifying those technological solutions that will most likely be
invested in by the study participants’ firms over the next five years and can possibly be a proxy for the
broader market. The top ten solutions, in terms of firm intent to purchase over the next five years,
were Analytics Platform (31%), Labor Management (29%), Rate and Bid Automation (29%), Route
Optimization (28%), Customer Relationship Management (26%), Demand Forecast Software (26%),
Enterprise Resource Planning (26%), Freight Broker System (26%), Project Management (26%), and
Transportation Management (26%). Figure A1 illustrates the difference between current software used
versus software intended to implement over the next five years (Front 2019).

Figure A1: Logistics Technology Implementation Plan

Warehouse Management
Transportation Management
Route Optimization
Rate and Bid Automation
Project Management
Procurement
Labor Management
Inventory Management
Freight Broker System
Fleet Management
Enterprise Resource Planning
Demand Forecast Software
Customer Relationship Management
Auditing/Claims/Freight Payment
Asset Utilization/Load Planning
Analytics Platform

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Next 5 Years Current

Summation of interview responses collected by CBAER

Of significance, several of the studies that were reviewed indicated that certain factors deterred the
purchasing of logistics technology and software (Bubner, Helbig and Jeske 2018). Infosys et al., 2020).
Front (2019) asked 413 firm decision makers to identify the factors that deter them from purchasing any
specific logistics technology solution. Respondents indicated that these included change management
issues (49%), cost of acquiring the solution (45%), difficulties encountered with integrating the solution
with other systems (41%), and difficulty to implement (39%). These factors should inform an initiative or
strategy aimed at developing logistics technology intended to be diffused to commercial markets.
 98

Appendix B: NAICS Tables Logistics & Transportation

Table B1: Transportation, Distribution and Logistics Season Career Cluster

Code Occupation Career Pathway

49-3011.00 Aircraft Mechanics and Service Technicians Facility and Mobile Equipment Maintenance

53-6031.00 Automotive and Watercraft Service Attendants Facility and Mobile Equipment Maintenance

49-3021.00 Automotive Body and Related Repairers Facility and Mobile Equipment Maintenance

49-3022.00 Automotive Glass Installers and Repairers Facility and Mobile Equipment Maintenance

49-3023.01 Automotive Master Mechanics Facility and Mobile Equipment Maintenance

49-3023.00 Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics Facility and Mobile Equipment Maintenance

49-3023.02 Automotive Specialty Technicians Facility and Mobile Equipment Maintenance

49-2091.00 Avionics Technicians Facility and Mobile Equipment Maintenance

49-3091.00 Bicycle Repairers Facility and Mobile Equipment Maintenance

49-3031.00 Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine Specialists Facility and Mobile Equipment Maintenance

53-7061.00 Cleaners of Vehicles and Equipment Facility and Mobile Equipment Maintenance

Electrical and Electronics Installers and Repairers,

49-2093.00 Facility and Mobile Equipment Maintenance
Transportation Equipment

Electronic Equipment Installers and Repairers, Motor

49-2096.00 Facility and Mobile Equipment Maintenance
Vehicles

49-3042.00 Mobile Heavy Equipment Mechanics, Except Engines Facility and Mobile Equipment Maintenance

49-3051.00 Motorboat Mechanics and Service Technicians Facility and Mobile Equipment Maintenance

49-3052.00 Motorcycle Mechanics Facility and Mobile Equipment Maintenance

49-3043.00 Rail Car Repairers Facility and Mobile Equipment Maintenance

47-4061.00 Rail-Track Laying and Maintenance Equipment Operators Facility and Mobile Equipment Maintenance

49-3092.00 Recreational Vehicle Service Technicians Facility and Mobile Equipment Maintenance

49-9097.00 Signal and Track Switch Repairers Facility and Mobile Equipment Maintenance

49-3093.00 Tire Repairers and Changers Facility and Mobile Equipment Maintenance

Logistics Planning and Management

43-5032.00 Dispatchers, Except Police, Fire, and Ambulance
Services

Logistics Planning and Management

13-1081.00 Logisticians
Services

Logistics Planning and Management

13-1081.02 Logistics Analysts
Services
 99
Logistics Planning and Management
13-1081.01 Logistics Engineers
Services

Logistics Planning and Management

11-3071.03 Logistics Managers
Services

Logistics Planning and Management

11-3071.02 Storage and Distribution Managers
Services

Logistics Planning and Management

11-3071.01 Transportation Managers
Services

Logistics Planning and Management

11-3071.00 Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Managers
Services

43-3021.00 Billing and Posting Clerks Sales and Service

43-3021.02 Billing, Cost, and Rate Clerks Sales and Service

43-5011.00 Cargo and Freight Agents Sales and Service

43-5011.01 Freight Forwarders Sales and Service

53-6021.00 Parking Lot Attendants Sales and Service

43-3021.01 Statement Clerks Sales and Service

53-1011.00 Aircraft Cargo Handling Supervisors Transportation Operations

53-2011.00 Airline Pilots, Copilots, and Flight Engineers Transportation Operations

Ambulance Drivers and Attendants, Except Emergency

53-3011.00 Transportation Operations
Medical Technicians

53-6011.00 Bridge and Lock Tenders Transportation Operations

53-3022.00 Bus Drivers, School or Special Client Transportation Operations

53-3021.00 Bus Drivers, Transit and Intercity Transportation Operations

53-5021.00 Captains, Mates, and Pilots of Water Vessels Transportation Operations

53-2012.00 Commercial Pilots Transportation Operations

43-5021.00 Couriers and Messengers Transportation Operations

First-Line Supervisors of Helpers, Laborers, and Material

53-1021.00 Transportation Operations
Movers, Hand

Source: O*NET OnLine, Career Cluster, Transportation, Distribution & Logistics

 100

Table B2: Information Technology Career Cluster

Code Occupation Career Pathway
15-1199.08 Business Intelligence Analysts Information Support and Services

15-1199.00 Computer Occupations, All Other Information Support and Services

15-1199.02 Computer Systems Engineers/Architects Information Support and Services

15-1151.00 Computer User Support Specialists Information Support and Services

15-1199.07 Data Warehousing Specialists Information Support and Services

15-1199.06 Database Architects Information Support and Services

15-1199.12 Document Management Specialists Information Support and Services

15-1199.05 Geographic Information Systems Technicians Information Support and Services

15-1199.04 Geospatial Information Scientists and Technologists Information Support and Services

15-1199.09 Information Technology Project Managers Information Support and Services

15-1199.10 Search Marketing Strategists Information Support and Services

15-1199.01 Software Quality Assurance Engineers and Testers Information Support and Services

15-1199.11 Video Game Designers Information Support and Services

15-1199.03 Web Administrators Information Support and Services

15-1143.00 Computer Network Architects Network Systems

15-1152.00 Computer Network Support Specialists Network Systems

15-1141.00 Database Administrators Network Systems

15-1122.00 Information Security Analysts Network Systems

15-1142.00 Network and Computer Systems Administrators Network Systems

15-1143.01 Telecommunications Engineering Specialists Network Systems

15-1131.00 Computer Programmers Programming and Software Development

15-1121.00 Computer Systems Analysts Programming and Software Development

15-1121.01 Informatics Nurse Specialists Programming and Software Development

15-1132.00 Software Developers, Applications Programming and Software Development

15-1133.00 Software Developers, Systems Software Programming and Software Development

15-1134.00 Web Developers Web and Digital Communications

Source: O*NET OnLine, Career Cluster, Information Technology

 101

Appendix C: Stakeholder & Expert Interview Guide

Savannah Logistics Technology and Innovation Hub Study
Stakeholder and Expert Interview Guide

INTRODUCTION and CONSENT

Dear Professional,

This letter pertains to a research study being conducted by researchers at Georgia Southern
University. The research study focuses on logistics technology adoption and implementation strategy
and planning by firms and organizations. More definitively, this study seeks to determine the economic,
organizational, and managerial factors that influence decision regarding firm logistics technology
acquisition, development and investment decisions. The research requires the input of organization
administrative, operations and logistics professionals that work in organizations that utilize logistics
technology as either their primary line of business or do so in support of primary business activities.
Being such a professional, your input will be collected through interview questions. All aspects of your
input to the research are confidential and all responses will be observed solely by the researchers and
no other individual or party. Please note that there are no right, wrong, preferred or required
responses in this research study; your unique insights and preferences are the sole interest and focus
in this research.
Completing the interview exercise should take approximately 45 minutes. You can also be
asked to participate in one or two more follow up interviews. Your participation in this study is
voluntary. You reserve the exclusive right to choose to respond to questions or not, and to also
discontinue your participation at any time without any penalty or loss of benefits to which you are
otherwise entitled. Your decision to participate or not to participate in no way, in the present or the
future, affects your relations with the researchers or Georgia Southern University.
This project has been reviewed and approved by the GSU Institutional Review Board under a
specified tracking number. For questions concerning your rights as a research participant, or if you
have any concerns about the research, you may contact the Georgia Southern University Institutional
Review Board (IRB). If you have questions specific to this research project, please contact the research
team utilizing the provided contact information.
 102
By proceeding and participating in this interview, you are implying you understand these terms and are
granting your consent to willingly participate in this research.

Thank You for Your Participation

 103
Interview Segment 1 (All Stakeholders):
1. Which industry does your organization belong to?

2. What is your title and role in your firm?

3. From your perspective, which market and social phenomena currently serve to drive increased
demand for logistics technology and innovation?

4. From your perspective, which technologies do you believe currently and within the next five
years will have the most impact on the logistics function and industry?

5. From your perspective, which technologies do you believe will have the most impact on the
logistics function and industry beyond the next five years?

6. From your perspective, which current or emerging logistics operations or process challenges
can be addressed by a technological solution that currently does not exist or is not available on
the market? What problem can that technological solution solve?

7. From your perspective, what are the inhibitors of successful logistics technology development,
advancement and diffusion to markets?

8. From your perspective, what are the facilitators and drivers of successful logistics technology
development, advancement and diffusion to markets?

Interview Segment 2 (All Stakeholders):

9. From your perspective, what is the role of industrial corporations in the development,
advancement and diffusion of logistics technology to markets and how impactful is corporate
venturing in the logistics function and industry?

10. Please rate the following organization types on a scale from 1 to 10 (1 = little to no importance; 5
= moderate importance, 10 = absolutely essential) to indicate the importance you perceive them
to have in the development, advancement and diffusion of logistics technology to markets.
Please Explain
a. Economic Development Authorities/Governmental Entities
b. Industry Corporations
c. Venture Capital Firms and Angel Investors
d. Technology Incubators
e. Universities
f. Other
11. From your perspective, which organization and entity types would need to be involved in the
establishment and operation of a logistics technology and innovation hub? What is your
 104
perspective on the best operating structure for the hub and how decision-making authority and
leadership should be allocated across the organization types involved?

12. Based on your experience or perspective, in what ways do/can universities best support
logistics technology development, innovation and entrepreneurship?

13. Based on your experience or perspective, in what ways do/can K-12 institutions best support
logistics technology development, innovation and entrepreneurship?

14. Based on you experience or perspective, which education (degree) programs of study are most
important to logistics and supply chain technology development, advancement and diffusion to
markets?

15. Which of the following types of educational programming will most support logistics and supply
chain technology development, advancement and diffusion to markets? Please rate on a scale
of 1-10 (1 = little to no importance; 5 = moderately important, 10 = absolutely essential)
⎯ Graduate degree program in logistics and supply chain management
⎯ Graduate degree programs in engineering, math and science (STEM)
⎯ Customized executive education in logistics and supply chain management technology
⎯ Certification in programming and coding
⎯ Certification and customized training in the business of logistics and supply chain
technology
⎯ Other

Interview Segment 3 (Savannah Stakeholders Only):

16. On a scale from 1 to 10 (1 = very low; 5 = adequate; 10 =extremely high), how would you rate the
Savannah region as a place to start and operate any type of business? Explain.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not At All Low Somewhat Somewhat Very
Important
Important Importance Important Important Important

17. On a scale from 1 to 10 (1 = very low; 5 = adequate; 10 =extremely high), how would you rate the
Savannah region as a place to start and operate a logistics technology company? Explain.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not At All Low Somewhat Somewhat Very
Important
Important
 105
18. On a scale from 1 to 10, (1 = not willing at all; 5 = somewhat willing; 10 =very willing), what level of
willingness do you perceive logistics and supply chain-related companies in the Savannah area
will support logistics innovation and technology development activity?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not At All Low Somewhat Somewhat Very
Important
Important

19. On a scale from 1 to 10, (1 = not willing at all; 5 = somewhat willing; 10 =very willing), what level of
willingness do you have to invest resources and your expertise in logistics innovation and
technology development activity in a Savannah Logistics Technology and Innovation Hub?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not At All Low Somewhat Somewhat Very
Important
Important

20. From your perspective, which factors make Savannah an ideal location for logistics technology
and innovation advancement and entrepreneurial activity?

21. From your perspective, should decision makers invest resources in a logistics technology and
innovation hub (corridor) in the Savannah area? Explain.

Interview Segment 4 (Logistics and Supply Chain Technology Entrepreneur Stakeholders Only):
22. From your perspective, which factors are most important in determining the success of a
logistics or supply chain management-based technology startup venture?

23. From your perspective, which factors are most important when deciding on the best
geographic location for a logistic or supply chain management-based technology startup
venture?
 106

24. From your perspective, please rate the following factors on a scale from 1 to 10 (1 = little to no
importance; 5 = moderately important, 10 = absolutely essential) in terms of their importance in
deciding if to locate a logistics or supply chain management-based technology startup venture
in a specific geographic location.
⎯ Access to capital and investors within a geographic location
⎯ Access to functional and subject matter expertise within the geographic location
⎯ The existence of a network of similar businesses
⎯ Access to transportation systems (airports and mass transit systems)
⎯ The housing market (pricing and variety)
⎯ Talent and human capital
⎯ Government economic incentives
⎯ Technology incubator programs
⎯ Quality of life factors (social and cultural activity opportunities)
⎯ Others
25. From your perspective, which government economic incentives are most beneficial to logistics
or supply chain management-based technology startup ventures?

Thank You
 107

Appendix D: Interview Participants

The following is a detailed list of the logistics technology experts that participated in the study.
# Title Industry Interviewee Category
1 CEO Software (LSCM) Entrepreneur
Retired Vice and Co- Professional
2 Savannah Stakeholder
Chair Services/Management Consulting
3 Board Member Software Global Expert
4 Regional Vice President Software (LSCM) Global Expert
5 Start Up Coach Incubator Savannah Stakeholder
6 CEO Internet Entrepreneur
7 Chief Innovation Officer Retail Savannah Stakeholder
8 Chief Innovation Officer Retail Global Expert
9 Chief Innovation Officer Retail Entrepreneur
10 Director Economic Development Savannah Stakeholder
11 Associate Director Economic Development Savannah Stakeholder
12 General Manager Retail Savannah Stakeholder
13 CEO Software (LSCM) Entrepreneur
14 CEO Software (LSCM) Global Expert
15 Dean Education Global Expert
16 Dean Education Entrepreneur
17 COO Software (LSCM) Entrepreneur
18 General Manager Manufacturing Savannah Stakeholder
19 Senior Director Port Operations Global Expert
20 General Manager Port Operations Global Expert
Human Resource
21 Port Operations Global Expert
Operations Manager
22 Senior Director Port Operations Savannah Stakeholder
23 General Manager Port Operations Savannah Stakeholder
Human Resource
24 Port Operations Savannah Stakeholder
Operations Manager
25 Executive Vice President Software (LSCM) Global Expert
26 Corporate Trainer Software (LSCM) Global Expert
27 Executive Vice President Software (LSCM) Entrepreneur
28 Corporate Trainer Software (LSCM) Entrepreneur
29 Vice President 3PL Global Expert
30 Vice President 3PL Entrepreneur
31 CEO Software (LSCM) Entrepreneur
32 Head IOT Internet Software Entrepreneur
33 Chair Venture Capital Global Expert
34 Site Director E-commerce Global Expert
35 Site Director E-commerce Savannah Stakeholder
36 CEO Incubator Global Expert
37 CEO Incubator Entrepreneur
38 Vice President 3PL Global Expert
 108
# Title Industry Interviewee Category
39 Vice President 3PL Entrepreneur
40 Senior Vice President Supply Chain Services Global Expert
41 Chief Operating Officer Transportation Global Expert
42 Chief Operating Officer Transportation Entrepreneur
43 Director Retail Global Expert
44 VP 3PL/Drayage Global Expert
45 VP 3PL/Drayage Savannah Stakeholder
Professional
46 Senior Business Broker Savannah Stakeholder
Services/Management Consulting
47 President Supply Chain Services Global Expert
48 President Supply Chain Services Savannah Stakeholder
49 President Supply Chain Services Entrepreneur
50 Senior Director Software (LSCM) Global Expert
51 Senior Director Software (LSCM) Savannah Stakeholder
52 Senior Director Software (LSCM) Entrepreneur
53 CEO Software (LSCM) Savannah Stakeholder
54 CEO Software (LSCM) Entrepreneur
Professional
55 CEO Savannah Stakeholder
Services/Management Consulting
56 CEO Software (LSCM) Entrepreneur
57 CEO Incubator Global Expert
58 CEO Technology Entrepreneur
59 COO IT Services Savannah Stakeholder
60 CTO/Cofounder Software Entrepreneur
61 Chief Innovation Officer Airline Global Expert
 109

Appendix E: Education Inventory

DEGREE/
SCHOOL NAME EDUCATION LEVEL DEPARTMENT PROGRAM NAME COUNTY
CERTIFICATION

Bulloch County &

Distribution and
Savannah Chatham Secondary- High Logistics CTAE Career Bulloch and
Logistics
County Public School Fundamentals Pathway Chatham
Pathway
Schools

Bulloch and
Logistics Operations Pathway/CTEA
Chatham

Material Bulloch and

Pathway/CTAE
Management Chatham

Bachelor of
Georgia Southern Post-Secondary- Parker College of
Information Systems Business Bulloch
University University Business
Administration

Supply Chain Bachelor of

Bulloch and
Management- Business
Chatham
Logistics Administration

Supply Chain
Bachelor of
Management-
Business Bulloch
Operations
Administration
Management

Master of Business
Logistics and Supply
Administration/ Chatham
Chain Management
Ph. D.

Allen E. Paulson
College of Computer
Bachelor of Science Bulloch
Engineering and Engineering
Computing *

Electrical Engineering Bachelor of Science Bulloch

Manufacturing
Bachelor of Science Bulloch
Engineering

Computer Science Bachelor of Science Bulloch

Information Bulloch and

Bachelor of Science
Technology Chatham

Information
Bachelors Online
Technology

Applied Engineering Master of Science Bulloch

 110

Bulloch
Computer Science Master of Science

Information
Master of Science Bulloch
Technology

Ogeechee Technical Post-Secondary- Associate of Applied

Logistics Supply Management Bulloch
College Technical College Science

Logistics
Associate of Science Bulloch
Management

College of Bachelor of
Savannah State Post-Secondary- Computer
Business Business Chatham
University University Information Systems
Administration Administration

Global Logistics and Bachelor of

International Business Chatham
Business Administration

College of
Computer Science
Science and Bachelor of Science Chatham
Technology
Technology

Electronics
Engineering Bachelor of Science Chatham
Technology

College of Liberal Homeland Security

Arts and Social and Emergency Bachelor of Arts Chatham
Sciences Management

Business and Chatham,

Savannah Technical Post-Secondary/ Logistics
Professional Associate of Science Effingham and
College Technical College Management
Services Liberty

Savannah,
Logistics and Supply
Diploma Effingham and
Management
Liberty

Savannah,
Logistics and Supply Associate of Applied
Effingham and
Management Science
Liberty

Savannah,
Technical Certificate
Logistics Technician Effingham and
of Credit
Liberty

Certified Savannah,
Technical Certificate
Warehousing and Effingham and
of Credit
Distribution Liberty

Information Commercial Truck Technical Certificate Effingham and

Technology Driving of Credit Liberty
 111

Appendix F: Georgia Southern Faculty Expertise

College Faculty Expertise

Studies intra- and inter-organizational stocks and flows of

knowledge, goods, services, and capital; studies antecedents
and consequences of intra- and inter-organizational
Parker College of Business
integration; studies nature of disruptions and risk, and
individual and organizational behaviors to manage
disruptions and risk to mitigate negatives.

Expertise in interdisciplinary STEM education; expertise in

international relations; expertise in local government
College of Behavioral & management, public policy analysis, program evaluation,
Social Sciences nonprofit management, and philanthropy; expertise in rural
health and education; Expertise in the scholarship of
teaching and learning.

Faculty members with expertise in instructional design; use

of technology to support learning; educational psychologists
who study the cognitive, social, and emotional factors
College of Education
involved in human learning (children and adults); teacher
educators who are experts in facilitating learning P-12
settings; faculty expertise in STEM education

Renewable energy; (Industrial) Internet of Things and Smart

City; STEM education, cybersecurity and digital forensics,
data science and data analytics, computer networks and
College of Engineering &
communications; robotics and intelligent systems;
Computing
environmental control systems; construction and
transportation systems; materials science and processing;
advanced/additive manufacturing

Chemistry; ecology and management; bioenergy;

College of Science &
hybrid/nano composite; polymer and biologically-inspired
Mathematics
materials science; computational sciences
 112

Appendix G: Current Georgia Southern Research

Current University research includes but is not limited to

● Port maintenance activities – dredging, widening, environmental assessment

● Additive manufacturing principles for civil infrastructure in developing communities
● Environmentally benign manufacturing and eco-materials
● Internet of Things and smart city
● Data science and analytics,
● Cognitive science and consciousness
● Machine learning and artificial intelligence
● Cloud computing
● Statistical consulting
● Risk and resilience
● Processes, practices, and policies
● Inventory
● Integration
● Knowledge and intellectual property
● Networks and cybersecurity
● Automation, Robotics and mechatronics
● Advanced manufacturing engineering.
● Materials science
● Transportation and warehousing
● Multi-modal (air-rail-freight)
● Logistics Operations and Engineering
● Ports and Terminals logistics and construction engineering
● Aerospace Maintenance, Repair & Operations (MRO)
 113

References
Andrade, Ernest. 2020. "Charleston Digital Corridor Public Presentation: We've come a long
way 2001-2020."
AURP. 2020. Creating Communities of Innovation. Accessed February 2020.
https://www.aurp.net/.
Bubner, N, R Helbig, and M Jeske. 2018. Logistics Trend Radar. DHL.
Charleston Digital Corridor. 2020. Charleston Digital Corridor. Accessed February 2020.
https://www.charlestondigitalcorridor.com/.
City of Savannah. 2020. Savannah.gov. Accessed March 2020.
http://savannahga.gov/1528/Business-Development-Partnerships.
Coast, Creative. 2019. U.S. Economic Development Administration, 2019 Awardees. Accessed
January 2020. https://www.eda.gov/oie/ris/seed/2019/awardees/creative-coast-
inc.htm.
CSMCP. 2020. Council of Supply Chain Management Definitions & Glossary.
https://cscmp.org/CSCMP/Educate/SCM_Definitions_and_Glossary_of_Terms.aspx.
Dahlstrand, Asa Lindholm, and Helen Lawton Smith. 2009. "Science Parks and Economic
Development." Edited by Prasada Reddy. Globalization of Technology: Issues in
Technology Transfer and Technological Capability Building.
Deloitte. 2017. "#SupplyChainCity Analysis of Leading Supply Chain Cities." Metro Atlanta
Chamber.
Derby, Kevin. 2018. "Federal Government Sending Funds to Help Transportation Projects in
Jacksonville." Florida Daily online, Dec 7: Florida Daily. https://www.floridadaily.com/.
EFT. 2019. The State of Logistics Technology Report 2019. EFT.
Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 1995. "The Triple Helix -- University-Industry-
Government Relations: A Laboratory for Knowledge Based Economic Development."
EASST Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, 14-19.
Front. 2019. "FrontApp.com." https://frontapp.com/resources/logistics-tech-trends.
https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/4766782/Resources/Front%20_%202019%20Logistics
_Tech_Trends_Report.pdf.
Georgia Department of Economic Development. 2019. "Plastic Express to Expand Operations
to Chatham County." Georgia Department of Economic Development. April 24.
https://www.georgia.org/newsroom/press-releases/plastic-express-expand-
operations-chatham-county.
GIID. 2020. The Global Institute on Innovation Districts. Accessed March 2020.
https://www.giid.org/innovation-districts-ambition/.
Global Atlanta. 2019. "Irish startup picks Savannah through ‘Tradebridge’ link." Savannah
Economic Development Authority. February 11. Accessed March 2020.
https://seda.org/2020/03/irish-startup-picks-savannah-through-tradebridge-link/.
Groves, Paul A, and Edward K Muller. 1979. "The Emergence of Industrial Districts in Mid-
Nineteenth Century Baltimore." Geographical Review 69, 159-178.
 114

Hausman, Ludwig, Tobias Woefl, Jaron Stofels, and Oliver Fleck. 2020. "Startup Funding in
Logistics: New money for an old industry?" McKinsey & Company.
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Travel%20Transport%20an
d%20Logistics/Our%20Insights/Startup%20funding%20in%20logistics/Startup-
funding-in-logistics-New-money-for-an-old-industry.pdf.
IDC. 2020. Innovation District of Chattanooga. Accessed April 2020.
https://www.chainnovate.com/.
Inbound Logistics. 2019. "Georgia: The Logistics Advantage." inboundlogistics.com/. March 4.
https://www.inboundlogistics.com/cms/article/georgia-the-logistics-advantage/.
Intermodal.org. 2020. https://intermodal.org/. Accessed February 2020.
https://intermodal.org/about-iana/scholarship-program.
Katz, Bruce. 2015. "An Innovation district grows in Chattanooga." Brookings Institution, The
Avenue: Rethinking Metropolitan America. September. Accessed February 2020.
https://www.brookings.edu/series/innovation-districts/.
Katz, Bruce, and Julie Wagner. 2014. "The Rise of Innovation Districts: A New Geography of
Innovation in America." Metropolitan Policy Program (Brookings Institution).
Katz, Bruce, Thomas Osha, and Julie Wagner. 2019. The Evolution of Innovation Districts: The
New Geography of Global Innovation. The Global Institute of Innovation Districts.
Kearney, A.T. 2019. 30th Annual State of Logistics Report. Lombard, Illinois: Council of Supply
Chain Management Professionals.
Lawrence, Sara, Michael Hogan, and Elizabeth Brown . 2019. Planning for an Innovation
District: Questions for Practitioners to Consider. RTI Press.
Lee, Brian. 2020. "2020 Economic Yearbook: Southeast Georgia." Georgia Trend, April.
https://www.georgiatrend.com/2020/04/01/2020-economic-yearbook-southest-
georgia/.
Maiden, Todd. 2020. "How big is the logistics industry?" FreightWaves.com. January 11.
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/how-big-is-the-logistics-
industry#:~:text=Estimates%20of%20the%20size%20of,industry%20in%20any%20give
n%20year.
Markham, Mark. 2020. Center for Innovation and Logistics. https://www.georgia.org/georgia-
centers-of-innovation/logistics.
Marshall, Alfred. 1920. Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan.
O*NET. 2020. "About O*Net." www.onetcenter.org. Accessed April 2020.
https://www.onetcenter,org/overview.html.
Office of Business Opportunity. 2020. City of Savannah. Accessed February 2020.
http://savannahga.gov/483/Office-of-Business-Opportunity.
Parilla, Joseph. 2018. "Rethinking Cluster Initiatives: case Study Upstate South Caroline."
Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2018/07/201807_Brookings-Metro_Rethinking-Clusters-Initiatives_SC-
CUICAR.pdf .
Pease, Isabel. 2019. "UNF Center downtown is a hub for Entrepreneurism." UNF Journal,
Summer 2019.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers. 2016. Shifting Patterns: The Future of the Logistics Industry. PWC.
 115

PRNewswire. 2020. PRNewswire. June 02. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/top-

100-worldwide-universities-granted-us-utility-patents-in-2019-announced-
301069191.html.
Rogers, Dale, Elliott Rabinovich, and Steve Simmerman. 2017. Warehouse of the Future.
Phoenix: Arizona State University, W.P. Carey School of Business.
Salesfoundation.org. 2020. https://salesfoundation.org/. https://salesfoundation.org/.
SCM Journal List. 2019. Supply Chain Management Journalist List (SCM Journal List).
Accessed January 2020. http://www.scmlist.com/home/university-rankings/empirical-
report/.
SEDA. 2020. Savannah Economic Development Authority. Accessed February 2020.
https://seda.org/do-business-here/infrastructure/.
Smith, Bruce. 2012. "Digital Corridor built on Charleston, innovation." Aiken Standard, Nov. 2:
Associated Press.
Technology Association of Georgia. 2020. 2020 State of Georgia's Supply Chain/Logistics
Ecosystem. Atlanta: Technology Association of Georgia.
UF Innovate. 2020. http://innovate.research.ufl.edu/. http://innovate.research.ufl.edu/.
UPS. 2019. 2019 UPS Pulse of the Online Shooper. United Parcel Service.
WestEdge. 2020. WestEdge Charleston. Accessed April 2020.
https://www.westedgecharleston.com/musc-discovery-district/.
World Economic Forum. 2016. "Digital Transformation of Industries Logistics Industry." World
Economic Forum & Accenture.
 116

Data Tables

Table 1: Investment Amounts & Sources for Innovation Districts *in thousands .............................. 19
Table 2: Innovation District Incubator ..................................................................................................................21
Table 3: Logistics Industry in Georgia ............................................................................................................... 24
Table 4: Technology Industry in Georgia ..........................................................................................................25
Table 5: Complete Local Area Commuter Flows to Chatham County & Within Local County 26
Table 6: Gross Regional Product by Industry Segment & Type of Employment* ........................... 27
Table 7: Top Occupations in the Transportation, Distribution & Logistics Cluster ....................... 34
Table 8: Top Five Occupations in the Information Technology Cluster............................................. 35
Table 9: Top 5 Self-employed Occupations in Transportation, Distribution & Logistics Cluster
..............................................................................................................................................................................................37
Table 10: Top 5 Self-employed Occupations in Information Technology............................................37
Table 11: Degrees Awarded in Statesboro, as of the 2017-2018 academic year................................ 39
Table 12: Degrees Awarded in Savannah, as of the 2017-2018 academic year ..................................40
Table 13: Transportations, Distribution & Logistics Job Talent Locator .............................................. 41
Table 14: Information Technology Job Talent Locator ............................................................................... 42
Table 15: Trends Influencing Increased Investment in Logistics Technology and Innovation ... 47
Table 16: Most Impactful sustainable and Disruptive Logistics Technologies by Time Frame.. 49
Table 17: Factors That Support or Inhibit Technology Development and Diffusion to Markets
............................................................................................................................................................................................. 55
Table 18: Emergent Themes form Logistics Technology Expert Interviews ..................................... 69
Table 19: Critical Mass Rating Possible Scores ............................................................................................... 72
Table 20: Total Population .......................................................................................................................................73
Table 21: Non-farm Proprietors Employment...................................................................................................73
Table 22: Changes in Total Private Sector Establishments ...................................................................... 74
Table 23: Total Retail Sales (Million 2012 $) ..................................................................................................... 74
Table 24: Bank Deposits ($000) ............................................................................................................................75
Table 25: State of Georgia and Venture Capital Association (in thousands).....................................75
Table 26: Total Private Employment....................................................................................................................75
Table 27: Manufacturing Units................................................................................................................................76
Table 28: Establishments Within the Technical Core .................................................................................. 77
Table 29: Savannah MSA Higher Education .................................................................................................... 78
Table 30: Total Critical Mass Rating for Chatham County and Savannah MSA .............................. 81