Minutes of the January 2009 meeting

From Extension Collaborative Wiki

Note: See item at the bottom of page 2... the Writing Team has 60 days from Jan. 31 to update information on the NIMSS web site.

NCERA Meeting Jan. 30-31, 2009, Westin Peachtree Plaza, Atlanta, Georgia

Attending: Marcus Ashlock, Linda Benedict, Kristina Boone, Ruth Borger, Elaine Edwards, Jason Ellis, Martha Filipic, Pat Melgares, Virginia Morgan, Faith Peppers, Joan Thomson, Frances Gould, Mark Tucker, Sonny Ramaswamy, Chris Sigurdson Arriving Jan. 31: Dwayne Cartmell, Traci Naile, Tanner Robertson

Meeting convened at 1 p.m. on Jan. 30, 2009

Kris Boone distributed agenda and draft of revised Statement of Issues and Justification. Attendees made introductions and discussed budget situations in their states before discussion began.

I. Review Draft of Project Outline and Rationale

Mark Tucker, who could not attend the May meeting, asked for the reasoning behind broadening the focus of the project from Biosecurity Communication to Issues Management. A discussion ensued with the following points made:

• Faith Peppers responded that the change was precipitated by a multi-state effort to develop crisis communications plans, during which it became obvious that employing Issues Management could reduce number and severity of crises an institution faces.

• Chris Sigurdson said Issues Management involves other stakeholders besides college administrators; outside organizations' issues often affect our own institutions.

• Jason Ellis suggested we could take these plans "upstream" to the university level; Kris Boone responded that although that is part of the goal, stakeholder issues make the Extension and research institutions in our colleges function different than most issues dealt with at the university level, which mainly focuses on student/academic issues.

• Joan Thomson noted that the current draft focused very much on the operations side, and not much on research on the issues or developing an educational program on Issues Management.

• Pat Melgares and Ruth Borger discussed the benefits that Issues Management plans could bring to communications staffs. Administrators often turn to communicators during a crisis situation; Issues Management could bring communicators to the table on an ongoing basis and be an inroad to getting administrators' attention, and help institutions take an active role in influencing issues instead of passively allowing issues to gain momentum.

• Jason Ellis suggested that Issues Management can also help our institutions put issues on the agenda that could be beneficial.

Sonny Ramaswamy noted that the current draft of the Statement of Issues and Justification would not grab administrators' attention and suggested that the team spend the afternoon identifying the problem we want to articulate regarding Issues Management and working on a new draft. We need to demonstrate how a multi-state effort in particular brings more value than institutions working on this individually. The description should include long-term goals and partnering with underserved groups, such as 1890 and 1994 institutions.

During the following discussion, it was noted that different universities have achieved varying levels of achievement of Issues Management (e.g., Georgia's Crisis Management Plan is now being taught in the classroom; LSU teaches Issues Management in its Contemporary Issues in Agriculture course; Purdue communicators have annual meetings with administrators looking ahead at potential issues). Chris Sigurdson noted that the literature theorizes that institutions that employ Issues Management will be able to maintain autonomy; create goodwill; and get resources to work on problems. The idea is to get in front of potential problems before they become crises -- not only institutional problems but issues such as the placement of large animal facilities (when this became an issue in Indiana, Purdue produced a series of fact sheets aimed at zoning officials to help with decision-making and communication efforts). Faith Peppers noted that Issues Management has assisted communicators in Georgia in working with its legislature and gaining back funding lost five yeas ago. They identify three to four issues per year that face the state, and identify how the institution is addressing those issues. Starting in May each year, they work with media and work those issues all year; when legislature faces budget decisions, the institution requests funds for positions to support efforts on those issues. By employing this method, Georgia has seen increases in funding for four straight years. Chris Sigurdson noted that Issues Management is a mature field in public relations, but new to agriculture.

After a break, we held a brainstorming session to help us articulate the problem/issues. After the brainstorming session, we broke into two groups, one focusing on the Problem and Rationale and the other focusing on Outcomes. Each group wrote a draft and brought it back to the group the next morning.

The team reconvened at 8 a.m. Jan. 31.

Ruth Borger presented the Problem/Rationale team's effort. (See file "Issues Management, Problem and Rationale," below, at the end of this document.) The Writing Team (Ruth Borger, Elaine Edwards, Dwayne Cartmell, Virginia Morgan) will refine the document, adding information about the gaps in Issues Management research (it's primarily case study research; we can conduct hypothesis-driven research, including survey and/or experimental design, to expand current knowledge). More information about what needs to be included in this statement is set in italics in the body of the document. The audience is Sonny Ramswamy and his counterparts, and this should be viewed as a proposal for continuing support of NCERA 209. The Writing Team has 60 days to update information on the NIMSS web site.

Frankie Gould presented the Outcome team's effort:

OUTCOMES:

1. Institutionalizing a culture of strategic issue management

a. Training program for administrators and communicators in strategic issue management

b. Develop model issue management program that could be adopted by other institutions

c. Promote and conduct hypothesis-driven research that informs institutional practices and understanding of strategic issues management

d. Train-the-trainer in issue management with faculty to provide outreach to clientele

e. Conduct research and outreach on public and commodity issues management

2. Creation of a national repository and network of expertise on issue management

a. Establish an eXtension Community of Practice in the area of issue management

b. Develop and publish scholarly peer-reviewed best practices in issues management

c. Provide a best communications toolkit for use in an issues management practice

d. Create learning modules on issues management for academic programs

e. Create Extension curricula

Discussion followed, with suggestions to add outcomes involving:

• outreach to the 1890 and 1994 institutions

• bridging communications practices with research

• how issues management can involve (and benefit) our institution's stakeholders, and to be explicit about assisting our own institutions (internal) and other audiences (external)

II. Updates and action plans from outcome teams

The teams established during our May 2008 meeting in Kansas City were asked to present their reports. It was suggested that after this meeting, new teams be formed according to the outcomes/objectives we have created, each with Extension, Research and Academic components.

a. Current State of Knowledge team (Dwayne Cartmell and Marcus Ashlock The team has conducted a lit review. Risks are socially constructed and influenced by geography. Effective communication is dependent on trust of source. We need to be a reliable, accessible and trusted source of info before we can be effective. Team plans to create an annotated bibliography and expand the lit review based on discussions during the Atlanta meeting. The team will make the lit review available to the rest of the group as a resource to start a repository of knowledge.

b. Outreach/Community of Practice (Martha Filipic) Filipic reported that Peter Kent, who was co-leader of this team, had to drop out of this project due to budgetary concerns at Clemson. So far, the team has created a Community of Practice and a Collaboration space on eXtension.org. Virginia Morgan offered to assist the team in moving forward to learn how best to use those tools and share how-to’s with the rest of group.

c. Toolkit Team (Pat Melgares and Elaine Edwards) The team wrote an initial action plan that included conducting a gap analysis, building a project web page, writing white papers, testing just-in-time models, and publishing the toolkit. At the Atlanta meeting, the group’s focus changed to working more closely with the research team to assess the body of knowledge and determine areas in which best practices are needed; using survey data to inform best practices for landgrant universities; pilot-testing best practices; and evaluating progress. The group agreed to meet once per month by teleconference or CONNECT to maintain focus. Members of the research team are interested in participating in these monthly calls.

d. Training Team (Faith Peppers, Frankie Gould, Linda Benedict, Chris Sigurdson) The team is starting with where people are now, helping with the transition from crisis planning to issues management. A Crisis Spokesperson Training is being held in March 2009; also, a Business Continuity session was offered at ACE (Association of Communications Excellence) in June 2008; a Media Training workshop was offered in Little Rock for 1890 institutions in 2008; and another training was offered at Extension's Galaxy Conference in Indianapolis in September 2008. Two issue management sessions will be delivered at the ACE 2009 conference in Des Moines.

III. Funding Opportunities Sonny Ramaswamy reported that $700 million has been authorized for AFRI (Agriculture and Food Research Initiative) but Congress may not fund all of it. Multi-state projects will get 25 percent of AFRI funding. Stimulus package may contain more opportunities for funding.

Some funding requires a letter of intent that clearly articulates methods and outcomes in one page. These letters are reviewed to determine which projects get funded -- they are very important to the process. We should look at how we can partner with faculty members in writing letters of intent and on projects. There is a huge amount of money available right now under the broad definition of agriculture; if we work at it, we can tap into it.

IV. Reports Mark Rbonison, CSREES representative, could not attend the meeting. Sonny Ramaswamy, Administrative Advisor, asked that the team not hesitate to contact him with any questions or concerns.

V. Election of Chair Elect After this meeting, Faith Peppers becomes chair for two years. A motion by Joan Thomson for Ruth Borger to become chair-elect was seconded, and Borger was elected by unanimous consent.

VI. Objectives

1) Create a culture of strategic issues management within our institutions.

2) To link current research into the development of best communication practices for land grant institutions

3) To enhance institutional communication capacity at land grant institutions

Each objective has a team. Teams met individually then reported back to the group after lunch on plans for Procedures and Activities. Team Procedures and Activities

1) To create a culture of strategic issues management within our institutions. Leader: Marcus Ashlock. Team members: Traci Naile, Tanner Robertson

Assess body of knowledge Gap analysis Create a knowledge repository Assess capacity Create tool kits Monitor environment Identify trends Prioritize issues Define potential impact Make a strategic decision Implement Evaluate

Yr 2: Review Issues Management literature to establish lexicon; provide annotated bibliography; develop FAQ on language; assess the current state of practice: Who is doing it and what does it look like; IRB approval

Yr 3 Publish white paper to be used as a basis for presentations on current state of issues management and how it will benefit our institutions

Yr 4: Looking for impact; who is using, who is not

Yr 5 Define strategies for change

Hypothesis driven research will be included in above.

Team will communicate via a monthly conference call.

2) To link current research into the development of best communication practices for land grant institutions. Leader: Pat Melgares, Kansas State. Team members: Elaine Edwards, Jason Ellis, Mark Tucker, Martha Filipic

Team will: Conduct research; assess body of knowledge; conduct gap analysis; create a knowledge repository; develop best practices; disseminate through appropriate channels including peer reviewed publications

Milestones:

Year 2: Develop the methodology for the survey of land grant institutions Assess body of knowledge – expand literature review

Year 3: Collect, analyze and report land grant survey data; continue scan of tools already in use in Best practices development started Identify research needs [hypothesis driven]

Year 4: Establish and pilot best practices

Year 5: Refine and elaborate best practices Publication and dissemination of findings

Identify areas where we should have best practices and/or need best practices Review how we gather data and how we get information; how we do environmental scan Census of land grant institutions to assess IM capacity Assess body of knowledge – expand literature review establish a research agenda; continue scan of tools already in use: Pat and Elaine [K-State] survey of land grant institutions issue management capacity; identify what the best practices existing in other disciplines. Meta analysis of case studies Start development of best practices

Team will communicate on the Wiki or through collaboration page on eXtension.

3) To enhance institutional communication capacity at land grant institutions Leader: Linda Benedict Team members: Frankie Gould, Faith Peppers, Dwayne Cartmell, Kris Boone

Engage 1862, 1890, and 1994 institutions in a collective effort Initiate a professional development system targeting administrators, faculty, Extension educators, staff, students Implement a marketing strategy to inform and engage land grant institutions Create a Community of Practice Design a tool kit Design a certificate program in Issues Management [Great Plains approach]

Yr 2 : Trainings/workshops already in system; Issue management professional development curriculum for administrators, communicators, media [talk with national media about major issues]; Collaborate with SAAS to present professional development session on Issue Management either in breakout or general session; Continue involvement with 1890 and 1994 institutions.

Yr 3: Continuation on professional development system

Teams Graphic illustration of matrix (???)

We need to help people who are not here to be actively engaged in the process. We can recruit to our team; engage in conference call; follow up with them from this meeting; pull-push strategy send something to Deans/Exec Directors to encourage engagement; ACE media relations; want to invite people from 1890s and 1994 institutions.

Name a liaison to the 1890 and 1994 institutions; PON meeting connection,

Ask Sonny if 1994 and 1890 travel could be covered by  ???

Kris will send a message to the deans Faith will advise Leadership and Media Relations SIGs in ACE Faith will also talk with 1890s

NOTE: Web sites of note for NCERA 209 NIMSS project web site: http://www.nimss.umd.edu/

NCERA 209 Community of Practice on eXtension: https://people.extension.org/communities

NCERA 209 Collaboration site on eXtension: http://collaborate.extension.org/wiki/NCERA_209_Community_of_Practice

Issues Management Problem and Rationale

PROBLEM

Land grant institutions face an environment filled with internal and external challenges: rising costs, decreased funding, polarized communities, changing demographics and conflicting stakeholder values. Leadership experiences an “issues whiplash,” juggling the fallout from one issue to the next hoping to avoid a crisis that drains time, finances, energy and focus. While these issues may present unique characteristics among universities within the land grant system, they are mostly mutually shared challenges across the system.

The costs of issue whiplash are high. Constant reacting to situations compromises success, absorbs resources, and creates conflict. Performance is diminished, effectiveness is compromised and the focus on mission attainment in diverted. We don't have time to waste, we don't have resources to waste, and we don't have energy to waste.

Land grant institutions need a systemic approach to forecasting, identifying, and managing situations that threaten their viability. They need a process that engages diverse stakeholders in designing a sustainable land grant system for the future.

HYPOTHESIS/PROPOSAL

Land grant institutions will increase their effectiveness and increase their potential to respond to the ever-changing needs of their communities by adopting an issues management systemic approach and practice. By developing an inter-institutional issues management strategy, the land-grant system will create a national forum for problem solving, strengthen capacity to serve our changing communities, and realize our collective mission.

RATIONALE

Issues management offers a way to identify and address issues. It is an effective, proven process implemented by multinational corporations with a strong case study research base. But it has not yet been systemically implemented across higher education.

In addition to providing a process to manage our work, an issue management process has the potential for land-grant operations to retain their reputation and credibility as trusted, engaged servant-leaders in the greater community while enhancing their influence within higher education networks.

There is evidence that implementation of an issues management system is effective in a land-grant context. Institutions have successfully used an issues management process to reverse state funding cuts and navigate the resource allocation debate [food vs. fuel]. An issues management approach also increases the land-grant capacity to serve its stakeholders. Through training and setting an example, we can assist our stakeholders in managing issues before they become crises.

An issues management system allows leaders to streamline the time from identification of an issue to productive resolution. It clearly defines the roles for communications strategists, administrative leadership, and faculty resources that, by working together, create a comprehensive, holistic, scientific approach to issues.

Include the research opportunity beyond case study research; there is limited research in this field. [further discussion needed here. There are opportunities to expand the research body of knowledge to support theory. For example content analysis of case studies is a potential; cost valuation of this strategy; communications research; turn this into an experimental design –hypothesis driven]

Adopting a multi-state methodology to this problem addresses many elements inherent to the problem. In the instantaneous communication world, one institution’s problem today can immediately become another institution’s problem tomorrow. This integrated approach supports the sharing of knowledge and experience. Certain states are doing this well already but there's been no way to share those successes with each other and create a best practices document that works for land-grant institutions nationwide.

Because universities, like other governmental organizations, are responsible to the public, identifying and responding to issues is a natural fit to this responsibility (Chase, 1984). A recent study of 1862 and 1890 land-grant universities revealed that only about 60 percent of these universities had a central crisis communications plan, and nearly a third of the respondents were unaware of a plan at their university. Most extant plans were at the university level, not affiliated with extension or experiment stations (Whiting, Tucker & Whaley, 2004). It is highly likely that fewer still have issues management plans or tools.

Issues management is "an anticipatory, strategic management process" to "detect and respond appropriately to emerging trends or changes in the socio-political environment" (Dougall, 2008). Once identified organizations can respond to the issues either directly or sometimes preemptively when the issue is in the potential stage (Crable and Vibbert, 1985), indirectly through actions like negotiations with affected groups, or by choosing when in the lifecycle of the issue, the organization should respond. Issues management is provides a conceptual basis for an organization work with issues offensively, not just defensively (Jacques, 2002).

Crable, R. E., & Vibbert, S. L. (1985). Managing issues and influencing public policy. /Public Relations Review, 11/, 3-16. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236581%231985%23999889997%23642951%23FLP%23&_cdi=6581&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000054276&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=2139813&md5=72abcfdc42ec0171953c0ad20dd70b85>

Dougall, E. (2008). Issues management. Institute for Public Relations Essential Knowledge Project. http://www.instituteforpr.org/essential_knowledge/detail/issues_management/

Jacques, T. (2002). Towards a new terminology: Optimizing the value of issue management. /Journal of Communication Management/ <http://info.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/journals.htm?id=JCOM>, /7/(2), 140-147.