The MSU site did not indicate how measurement and analysis is to be done beyond indicating a comparative basis, local unit measure compared to another local unit measure.

Once a comparison is made how does a community use the information to improve their processes, beyond a punitive out of context approach such as "We must do better than community x."? (Win-lose approach)

Hopefully MSU will recognize the need to establish context for each measure and to assess the quantitative data through the lens of variation over time – for each individual community participating. Reduction in variation (insuring capability, verifying stability and shrinking the process limits) is the goal, not doing better than someone else, since each process is unique as each community is unique. (See, Wheeler, Donald. "Understanding Variation". SPC Press)

If the metrics are produced by a process in an unstable state or from a process that is not capable of generating improvement, quality progress and long term process improvement will not be realized and participants will soon lose interest.

That is the hard lesson that the domestic auto industry may have learned a little too late (HOPE NOT!).