A Holistic ROI Thesis for EUPConnect

Executive Summary

Return on investment is one of the most familiar concepts in economic decision-making, yet conventional ROI becomes incomplete when applied to enabling infrastructure such as broadband. The problem is not necessarily that infrastructure produces an insufficient return. The problem is that much of its return occurs outside the balance sheet of the organization making the investment.

A broadband provider may capture subscriber revenue. A household may capture value through remote employment, education, healthcare, reduced travel, or entrepreneurship. A school may gain instructional capacity. A healthcare organization may improve service delivery. A business may become more productive. Local governments and emergency services may operate more effectively. Those activities can, in turn, contribute to employment, income, business growth, workforce development, institutional capacity, resilience, and future investment.

No single balance sheet contains the whole return.

This paper proposes a Holistic Return on Investment, or Holistic ROI, framework for evaluating enabling infrastructure across five complementary dimensions:

  1. Capital Return: Financial resources attracted, matched, pooled, or leveraged.
  2. Infrastructure Return: Physical capacity, reach, redundancy, reliability, and future usability created.
  3. User Return: Economic and practical value captured by households and organizations using the infrastructure.
  4. Regional Economic Return: Jobs, skills, business activity, local procurement, institutional capability, and economic resilience created or retained within the region.
  5. Generative Return: Additional partnerships, investments, capabilities, programs, and opportunities that emerge because earlier investments created the conditions for them.

The central thesis is:

The economic return on enabling infrastructure should be evaluated not only by the financial return captured by its owner, but also by the value it enables users to create, the value those activities generate for the surrounding community, the costs and risks they avoid, and the future opportunities made possible by capabilities that persist after the original investment.

The EUPConnect Collaborative provides a practical setting in which to test this proposition. EUPConnect connects schools, governments, Tribal entities, higher education, healthcare, economic development, broadband providers, and other regional partners around trusted relationships, shared evidence, regional planning, and layered public-private investment. Its history includes broadband measurement and citizen science, approximately 70 miles of high-capacity middle-mile fiber, subsequent last-mile investment, digital-opportunity initiatives, workforce development, and development of a high-capacity regional educational network.

The resulting argument is that EUPConnect’s economic value should not be measured solely by what EUPConnect itself owns, spends, or earns. Its more consequential function may be its ability to increase the return generated by investments throughout the regional system.

The Problem With Traditional Infrastructure ROI

Traditional ROI assumes a relatively clear relationship between an investor, an investment, and the financial return captured by that investor. A company purchases equipment because additional productivity or revenue is expected to exceed its cost. A telecommunications provider builds a network because subscriber revenue is expected to justify construction, financing, maintenance, and operating expenses.

That logic is necessary, but it becomes incomplete when applied to enabling infrastructure.

The reason is simple:

The return escapes the boundary of the organization making the investment.

A broadband provider can construct fiber and capture subscription revenue. The household using that fiber may subsequently capture value through employment, education, healthcare, entrepreneurship, entertainment, or avoided travel. A school may capture educational value. A healthcare provider may realize operational or patient-care benefits. A manufacturer may increase productivity. A community organization may reach people more efficiently. A new business may become feasible because reliable connectivity exists.

Economic value has been produced even though much of it never appears as revenue to the infrastructure owner.

The distinction is especially important in rural regions. When infrastructure costs are concentrated in one organization while benefits are distributed across many organizations and users, an economically productive investment can appear unattractive when evaluated from the perspective of only one balance sheet.

This suggests a different question.

Instead of asking only:

Will this infrastructure generate enough revenue for its owner?

regional economic development should also ask:

What economic activity becomes possible because this infrastructure exists, who captures that value, and what additional capabilities does that activity create?

A Holistic Model of Infrastructure Return

A conceptual model of Holistic ROI can be expressed as:

\[ROI_H = \frac{V_O + V_U + V_C + V_A + V_F - C}{C}\]

where:

  • $V_O$ = Owner Value: the financial and operational return captured by the infrastructure owner;
  • $V_U$ = User Value: the benefits captured by households, businesses, schools, healthcare organizations, governments, and other users;
  • $V_C$ = Community Value: the wider economic and institutional effects generated through those uses;
  • $V_A$ = Avoided Cost and Risk: avoided duplication, travel, outages, inefficiency, service disruption, and foregone opportunity;
  • $V_F$ = Future or Option Value: the value of capabilities, applications, relationships, and opportunities made possible later;
  • $C$ = Total Cost: public, private, philanthropic, institutional, and community resources invested.

This equation is primarily conceptual. It should not become an excuse to assign arbitrary dollar values to every desirable outcome. Some returns can be monetized reliably. Others should be expressed using physical, economic, educational, institutional, or network indicators.

The important innovation is therefore not the equation itself.

It is the boundary around the return.

Traditional project ROI asks:

What did the investor receive?

Holistic infrastructure ROI asks:

What did the owner receive, what did users gain, what did the community gain, what costs and risks were avoided, and what future productive capacity now exists?

Applying Holistic ROI to EUPConnect

The EUPConnect record already demonstrates movement from individual projects toward a regional investment system.

EUPConnect materials describe a partnership connecting schools, governments, Tribal entities, higher education, healthcare, economic development, and other organizations through local leadership, shared evidence, trusted relationships, and layered public-private investment.

The development sequence includes Michigan Moonshot and MSU Quello Center-supported identification of connectivity gaps, citizen-science broadband research, approximately 70 miles of high-capacity middle-mile fiber through LIFT-UP, subsequent last-mile investment, and development of dedicated E-Rate transport capacity.

Another EUPConnect narrative describes the underlying objective directly: the Eastern Upper Peninsula does not need disconnected projects, but a collaborative system in which infrastructure, education, workforce development, and community knowledge reinforce one another.

The emerging sequence is:

Measure → Organize → Invest → Connect → Build Capacity

Holistic ROI provides a way to measure what happens along that chain.

1. Capital Return: Turning Local Resources Into Regional Leverage

The first return is financial leverage.

Available EUPConnect financial records identify approximately $890,000 in cumulative revenues during the first five years represented in the available financial statement. Those resources included contributions from local districts, counties, townships, other sources, and interest.

That figure does not, by itself, establish EUPConnect’s return.

The more meaningful question is:

What larger flows of investment, infrastructure, expertise, and economic opportunity did those regional resources help organize or leverage?

A 2026 EUPConnect discussion provides one example. MISEN was reported to be matching approximately $580,000 toward the regional network project while also covering recurring costs for three districts for three years.

That should not simply be recorded as “$580,000 created by EUPConnect.” Such a claim would confuse participation with causation.

It can, however, be evaluated as external value mobilized around a collaborative regional initiative.

Regional Leverage Ratio

A useful indicator is:

\[Regional\ Leverage\ Ratio = \frac{Verified\ External\ Resources\ Mobilized} {EUPConnect\ Resources\ Committed}\]

The numerator can include verified public, private, philanthropic, partner, and in-kind resources associated with initiatives in which EUPConnect played a documented role.

Each investment should also record the nature of EUPConnect’s contribution:

  • directly secured;
  • co-developed;
  • matched or pooled;
  • facilitated;
  • supported; or
  • associated with the same regional initiative.

That attribution discipline is essential because regional development is inherently collaborative.

2. Infrastructure Return: Building Platforms Rather Than Endpoints

Broadband infrastructure creates returns for both owners and users.

EUPConnect’s internal history describes citizen-science research and broadband measurement as evidence subsequently translated into infrastructure investment. The LIFT-UP project added approximately 70 miles of high-capacity middle-mile fiber, creating a foundation upon which last-mile providers and future public and private investments could build.

The owner of that infrastructure has one ROI calculation.

The provider extending its network from it has another.

The household or business connected through that extension has another.

The surrounding regional economy can benefit from all three.

The value chain therefore becomes:

Middle Mile → Last-Mile Feasibility → Connection → Productive Use → Economic Activity

This suggests that a mile of fiber should not be treated solely as an output.

Its value partly depends on what follows.

EUPConnect’s goal of reaching every 911 address illustrates the downstream logic. Connectivity creates opportunities for students to access education, residents to reach healthcare, entrepreneurs to operate businesses, emergency responders to access information, and residents to participate more fully in the economic, educational, and civic life of the region.

The connection is therefore an intermediate output.

The return occurs through what people subsequently do with it.

3. Fund Stacking as ROI Engineering

The regional E-Rate project provides a useful example of Holistic ROI in practice.

Planning for the project described a regional network in which participating sites would receive 10 Gbps connectivity, hub locations would receive 100 Gbps, and the infrastructure would create a 100 Gbps ring connecting regional schools. The recommended proposal was eligible for an 81% E-Rate discount along with available state and federal matching resources. Other partner resources, including MISEN support, were also under consideration, while EUPConnect had approximately $250,000 in unencumbered local membership funds that could potentially offset project costs.

This illustrates something more sophisticated than grant seeking.

Different funding sources can absorb different portions of an infrastructure system because different organizations and public programs capture different parts of its value.

Fund stacking can therefore be understood as ROI engineering.

Instead of requiring one institution to finance an asset solely from the return it can capture individually, a region can align its capital stack with its benefit stack.

                    SHARED INFRASTRUCTURE
                           |
          +----------------+----------------+
          |                |                |
          v                v                v
        OWNER            USERS          COMMUNITY
        RETURN           RETURN           RETURN
          |                |                |
          +----------------+----------------+
                           |
                           v
                    ECONOMIC CAPACITY
                           |
                           v
                  NEW USES + NEW VALUE
                           |
                           v
                      REINVESTMENT

This suggests a broader principle:

When infrastructure benefits are distributed, investment can be distributed too.

4. Coordination Return: The Value of Not Repeating the Same Work

One of EUPConnect’s largest potential returns may not be physical infrastructure at all.

Every rural organization faces transaction costs.

Without shared capacity, individual townships, school districts, Tribal governments, healthcare organizations, economic-development organizations, and other institutions may independently need to:

  • interpret broadband and infrastructure data;
  • understand funding programs;
  • develop relationships with providers;
  • locate technical expertise;
  • identify infrastructure gaps;
  • prepare grant applications;
  • develop partnerships;
  • communicate with state and federal agencies;
  • understand workforce needs; and
  • locate precedent and research.

The region then pays repeatedly to reconstruct knowledge another organization may already possess.

EUPConnect’s own relationship narrative argues that the most significant network created through the initiative may not be a physical network at all, but the network of relationships built across the region.

Shared planning capacity can also reduce duplication, accelerate implementation, and help sequence investments more effectively.

These are economic benefits, and they can be measured.

Coordination Return Indicators

Indicator Measurement Method
Avoided duplication Staff or consultant hours avoided through shared work
Shared research Organizations reusing a dataset, plan, study, or analysis
Procurement leverage Collaborative cost compared with stand-alone procurement
Project acceleration Time from identified need to funding, award, or construction
Grant efficiency Shared applications, effort required, and award rate
Knowledge reuse Subsequent projects using earlier research or planning
Partner introductions Introductions resulting in projects or resources
Relationship persistence Partnerships continuing after the initiating project ends

This creates a way to begin making EUPConnect’s relationship infrastructure economically legible.

5. Workforce Return: Keeping More Infrastructure Value in the Region

Infrastructure construction creates economic activity, but a rural region does not necessarily capture much of that economic value.

If engineering, construction, installation, network operations, cybersecurity, controls, maintenance, and technical expertise must consistently be purchased from outside the region, a significant portion of infrastructure spending immediately leaves the local economy.

EUPConnect’s current narrative argues for investing in people alongside infrastructure so that more of the value produced by connectivity remains within the Eastern Upper Peninsula.

The Cloverland Training & Technology Center provides an example of how that strategy could work. Current planning connects the center with talent-development pathways supporting energy, electrical, broadband, technology, and skilled-trades work.

The economic chain becomes:

Infrastructure Investment
          |
          v
     Local Training
          |
          v
   Local Capability
          |
          v
  Employment + Firms
          |
          v
 Locally Retained Income
          |
          v
Greater Capacity to Build,
Operate, and Maintain the
Next Infrastructure System

The return is recursive.

Infrastructure creates demand for skills. Training enables residents to meet some of that demand. Local employment retains more wages and expertise within the region. The resulting skills increase the region’s ability to build and sustain future infrastructure.

That is more than workforce development attached to an infrastructure project.

It is a mechanism for increasing the regional capture rate of infrastructure investment.

6. User Return: Turning Availability Into Productive Use

Physical infrastructure produces limited economic return if people cannot use it effectively.

EUPConnect’s digital-opportunity planning already reflects this challenge. A regional Digital Navigator function, for example, has been considered as a mechanism for improving digital skills among underserved populations while connecting residents with technology, education, healthcare, and business opportunities.

The collaborative’s digital-opportunity work similarly identifies unequal digital access as a constraint on educational growth, economic development, and access to essential services.

The economic chain therefore contains several distinct stages:

Availability → Affordability → Adoption → Skills → Productive Use → Economic Value

Measuring only availability stops near the beginning.

Holistic ROI follows the investment farther downstream.

7. Human Capital Return

Broadband infrastructure and workforce development eventually intersect with education and talent retention.

EUPConnect’s work around the EUP Promise Zone reflects this connection between educational attainment, regional talent, and long-term economic capacity.

The resulting pathway can be expressed as:

Connectivity → Education → Skills → Credentials → Talent → Employment → Regional Economic Capacity

Viewed narrowly, scholarships are outside the ROI of broadband infrastructure.

Viewed regionally, broadband, education, workforce development, and talent retention contribute to the productive capacity of the same economy.

That is why choosing the measurement boundary matters.

8. Generative Return: Measuring What the Investment Makes Possible Next

The fifth category is the most distinctive.

Infrastructure possesses value not only because of uses known when it is constructed, but because it creates capacity for uses that have not yet emerged.

EUPConnect’s evolving portfolio illustrates this phenomenon. Its work now intersects with areas such as:

  • AI literacy and adoption;
  • smart-building efficiency;
  • cybersecurity;
  • digital skills;
  • workforce development;
  • regional research;
  • resilient terrestrial and satellite connectivity; and
  • cross-sector and cross-border opportunities.

Many of these uses would not have appeared in the business case for a rural fiber project conceived years earlier.

That is option value.

Part of infrastructure ROI is the value of not having to know the future in advance.

High-capacity, resilient, and adaptable infrastructure gives a region room to respond to opportunities that emerge after the original investment decision.

Generative return extends this principle beyond the physical asset.

A project may also generate:

  • new institutional relationships;
  • subsequent research;
  • later grant applications;
  • workforce programs;
  • private investment;
  • shared datasets;
  • collaborative procurement;
  • new organizations;
  • knowledge reused by another community; and
  • local expertise that reduces dependence on outside assistance.

These are not merely secondary benefits.

They can become inputs to the next cycle of regional development.

Measurement Methods

Holistic ROI requires methodological discipline precisely because its boundary is broader than conventional financial ROI.

The framework should therefore combine financial accounting, economic measurement, infrastructure metrics, program evaluation, and network analysis rather than forcing every outcome into a single dollar figure.

1. Establish a Baseline

Every significant initiative should begin with a documented pre-investment baseline.

Depending on the project, this may include:

  • broadband availability and adoption;
  • network speed and capacity;
  • recurring telecommunications costs;
  • outage frequency;
  • travel requirements;
  • workforce vacancies;
  • credentials available locally;
  • spending on external consultants;
  • number of participating institutions;
  • existing interorganizational relationships;
  • business formation;
  • remote-work participation; and
  • grant funding already committed.

EUPConnect’s prior broadband measurement and citizen-science work demonstrates the value of making regional conditions visible before investment occurs.

Without a baseline, later claims of impact become substantially harder to defend.

2. Maintain an Investment Ledger

EUPConnect should maintain a longitudinal ledger for major regional initiatives.

Field Example
Project Regional school transport network
Local investment EUPConnect or member contribution
Federal investment E-Rate
State contribution Applicable match
Partner investment MISEN, Merit, provider, or institution
Private investment Provider capital
In-kind resources Staff, property, engineering, or planning
Infrastructure output Capacity, fiber, sites, or equipment
Beneficiaries Schools, districts, institutions, or communities
EUPConnect role Convened, funded, facilitated, researched, advocated
Subsequent investment Later projects built upon the asset

The ledger provides the evidentiary foundation for calculating leverage without overstating attribution.

3. Measure Infrastructure Outputs

Physical outcomes should be measured using independently verifiable indicators such as:

  • fiber miles;
  • serviceable locations;
  • connected locations;
  • geographic coverage;
  • network capacity;
  • latency;
  • redundancy;
  • uptime;
  • route diversity;
  • community anchor institutions served;
  • cost per location;
  • cost per mile; and
  • upgrade capacity.

Physical measurement establishes what was actually built before downstream outcomes are attributed to it.

4. Measure User Outcomes

Infrastructure measurement should continue through adoption and productive use.

Possible indicators include:

  • household adoption;
  • affordability;
  • device availability;
  • digital-skills attainment;
  • remote-work participation;
  • telehealth use;
  • educational use;
  • small-business Internet use;
  • online business activity;
  • avoided resident travel; and
  • user satisfaction.

A connected address should not automatically be counted as a productive economic outcome.

5. Measure Regional Economic Outcomes

Where defensible data are available, measurement should include:

  • jobs created or retained;
  • wages associated with infrastructure and technology occupations;
  • credentials earned;
  • businesses created or expanded;
  • private investment;
  • local procurement;
  • household income;
  • workforce vacancies filled;
  • construction spending retained locally;
  • tax-base changes; and
  • reductions in externally purchased services.

For major interventions, economic-impact methods such as input-output analysis can estimate indirect and induced effects.

Those modeled impacts should always be distinguished clearly from directly observed outcomes.

6. Measure Avoided Costs and Risks

Infrastructure benefits often appear as costs that no longer need to be incurred.

Potential measures include:

  • avoided travel;
  • avoided duplicate consulting;
  • shared procurement savings;
  • reduced telecommunications expenditures;
  • avoided outage costs;
  • reduced staff time;
  • reduced grant-development duplication;
  • avoided service interruption;
  • reduced emergency communications risk; and
  • avoided relocation or outsourcing.

Whenever possible, calculations should rely on documented historical costs instead of hypothetical estimates.

7. Measure Network Effects

Because EUPConnect’s collaborative relationships are part of the economic hypothesis, relationship development should be measured systematically.

A simple annual organizational network survey could ask each participating institution:

  1. Which Eastern Upper Peninsula organizations did you collaborate with during the previous year?
  2. What type of relationship was involved?
  3. Did the relationship exist before EUPConnect?
  4. What resources, information, or expertise moved through the relationship?
  5. Did the relationship produce a project, proposal, funding award, shared service, research product, or program?
  6. Would the relationship likely continue without ongoing EUPConnect coordination?

Network analysis could then measure:

  • number of participating nodes;
  • number of relationships;
  • network density;
  • cross-sector connections;
  • brokerage;
  • dependency on particular central actors;
  • new connections;
  • persistent connections; and
  • relationships producing tangible outcomes.

This provides a method for testing whether EUPConnect is increasing regional connective capacity, rather than merely increasing meeting participation.

8. Measure Generative Outcomes Longitudinally

Generative return is inherently temporal.

Projects should therefore be revisited at intervals such as:

  • project completion;
  • 12 months;
  • 36 months; and
  • 60 months.

At each interval, ask:

What exists now that would probably not exist, or would have been materially more difficult to create, without the earlier investment?

Evidence could include:

  • a new business;
  • a workforce program;
  • a grant award;
  • an institutional relationship;
  • an infrastructure extension;
  • a curriculum;
  • a research initiative;
  • a shared service; or
  • a subsequent capital investment.

This creates an investment genealogy rather than treating every grant or capital project as an isolated event.

9. Use Counterfactual Evaluation Where Possible

The most difficult ROI question is attribution.

A useful EUPConnect counterfactual is:

If the EUPConnect Collaborative never existed, what difference would it make?

That question should become part of formal program evaluation.

Depending on the intervention and available data, suitable methods may include:

  • before-and-after comparison;
  • matched-community analysis;
  • interrupted time series;
  • difference-in-differences;
  • stakeholder counterfactual interviews;
  • contribution analysis; and
  • process tracing.

Not every initiative will permit causal inference.

Where causation cannot be demonstrated, EUPConnect should use graduated attribution language:

EUPConnect caused → EUPConnect contributed → EUPConnect facilitated → EUPConnect supported → EUPConnect participated → regionally associated

That vocabulary protects the credibility of the framework while recognizing the inherently collaborative nature of regional development.

The EUPConnect Holistic ROI Scorecard

Rather than reducing every outcome to a single monetized number, EUPConnect could report five complementary return accounts annually.

Return Account Core Question Representative Measures
Capital Return How much additional investment did regional resources help mobilize? Leverage ratio, grants, matches, partner investment, private capital
Infrastructure Return What durable capacity was built? Fiber miles, sites, addresses, capacity, redundancy, resilience
User Return What became possible for users? Adoption, affordability, skills, telehealth, education, remote work, business use
Regional Economic Return What economic capability remained or grew locally? Jobs, wages, credentials, businesses, procurement, workforce capacity
Generative Return What did this investment make possible next? Subsequent projects, partnerships, research, grants, institutions, reused knowledge

The scorecard provides a more defensible picture than attempting to claim a single economic multiplier for activities whose mechanisms differ substantially.

EUPConnect as a Regional Return Multiplier

This framework suggests a clearer institutional role for EUPConnect.

EUPConnect does not need to own every asset through which regional value is produced.

Its economic role does not need to be capturing the return.

Its more consequential role can be increasing the return produced by the regional system.

That value chain can be expressed as:

Measure → Organize → Pool → Align → De-risk → Invest → Connect → Develop → Retain → Generate

EUPConnect helps measure regional needs.

It organizes institutions possessing different resources.

It creates opportunities to pool those resources.

It helps align investments that might otherwise occur separately.

It reduces information and coordination barriers.

Partners make investments.

Infrastructure connects people and institutions.

Education and workforce programs develop the capacity to use the infrastructure productively.

More of the resulting capability can be retained locally.

That capability enables subsequent opportunities.

The development cycle begins again, but at a higher level of regional capacity.

From Linear ROI to Generative ROI

Traditional infrastructure ROI is generally represented as a linear transaction:

Investment → Asset → Revenue → Return

Holistic regional ROI is recursive:

Investment
    ↓
Infrastructure
    ↓
Capability
    ↓
Productive Use
    ↓
Economic + Community Value
    ↓
Skills + Relationships + Knowledge
    ↓
Regional Capacity
    ↓
New Opportunity
    ↓
Reinvestment
    ↓
New Capability
    ↺

The distinction is important.

A linear ROI calculation asks whether the original investment paid for itself.

A generative ROI evaluation also asks whether the investment increased the system’s ability to produce the next return.

Conclusion

The central problem with conventional infrastructure ROI may not be that it is wrong. It may simply draw the economic boundary too narrowly.

Broadband provides perhaps the clearest example. The provider investing in a network must obtain an adequate return or the infrastructure cannot remain economically sustainable. But the provider’s financial return represents only part of the economic value produced by the network.

Users capture value through employment, education, healthcare, business activity, communication, and avoided costs. Institutions can become more capable. New services and applications can emerge. Workforce development can allow more infrastructure spending and expertise to remain within the region. Relationships and shared knowledge created while solving one problem can reduce the cost of solving the next one.

The Eastern Upper Peninsula provides a particularly useful environment in which to examine these effects because infrastructure costs are high, population density is low, communities are geographically dispersed, and the institutions benefiting from infrastructure are diverse. Under those conditions, requiring a single organization to finance infrastructure solely from the portion of value it can directly capture can systematically undervalue otherwise productive investment.

The experience of EUPConnect suggests another approach.

Regional actors can pool resources where their interests overlap, stack funding where benefits are distributed, develop shared evidence, coordinate infrastructure investment, develop the workforce needed to use and maintain that infrastructure, and preserve relationships and knowledge capable of supporting whatever comes next.

The implication for economic development is significant:

When returns are distributed, investment can be distributed too.

Fund stacking is therefore more than a mechanism for closing a project budget. Resource pooling is more than a response to scarcity. Collaboration is more than an administrative arrangement.

Together, they can form an investment architecture that more closely matches the actual distribution of value created by enabling infrastructure.

For EUPConnect, that produces a different definition of success.

Success is not simply the number of miles of fiber installed, dollars awarded, addresses reached, meetings held, or programs completed. Those remain important outputs, but they are components of a larger economic process.

The larger question is whether those investments leave the Eastern Upper Peninsula more capable than it was before: more connected, more skilled, better coordinated, more resilient, more able to retain economic value locally, and better able to recognize and act upon the next opportunity.

That leads to a broader definition of infrastructure ROI:

The true return on infrastructure is not simply what the asset earns. It is what its owner, its users, and the surrounding region become capable of producing because the asset exists.

For EUPConnect, the ultimate test is therefore generative:

Did today’s investment solve today’s problem, or did it also increase the Eastern Upper Peninsula’s capacity to solve tomorrow’s?

If the answer to that second question can be systematically measured, EUPConnect can move beyond telling a compelling story of regional collaboration.

It can begin demonstrating, with evidence, the holistic economic return of collaborative regional capacity itself.