NCERA223: Building Capacity in Issues Management in the Land Grant System
(Multistate Research Coordinating Committee and Information Exchange Group)
Status: Inactive/Terminating
NCERA223: Building Capacity in Issues Management in the Land Grant System
Duration: 10/01/2011 to 09/30/2016
Administrative Advisor(s):
NIFA Reps:
Non-Technical Summary
Statement of Issues and Justification
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 is diverted.
Land-grant institutions need a systemic approach to forecast, identify and manage situations that threaten their viability. They need a process that engages diverse stakeholders in designing a sustainable land-grant system that continues to be relevant and successful in the future.
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. Issue management is a means for an organization to work with issues offensively and to seek opportunities through that work (Jacques, 2002).
The steps involved in issues management include monitoring, identifying, prioritizing, analyzing, strategic decision-making, implementing and evaluating (Regester and Larkin, 2005).
" Monitoring includes assessing the context or environment in which work is conducted, verifying vulnerabilities, examining what people are saying through the media, interest groups, stakeholder groups, etc., and detecting if these assessments may affect the organization.
" Through identification, the focus is on recognizing trends and the massing of support, patterns and stage of the issues lifecycle.
" Prioritization identifies the scope of the potential effect of the issue, the impact itself (life, property, funding), and the probability and immediacy of incidence.
" Analysis provides greater detail for the prioritized issues, more clearly defines the potential impact, and identifies critical team members and stakeholders.
" Strategic decision making is identifying messages, response techniques, target audiences, resources, and actions, and developing a plan specific to this particular issue.
" Implementation is carrying out the plan.
" Evaluation is the assessment of results and identification of successes and failures.
This proposal operates under the following hypothesis:
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 changing communities, and realize its collective mission.
Justification
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 for managing the work, an issue management process has the potential for land-grant operations to retain their reputations 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). Create 21 adopted an issues management approach in the recent Farm Bill legislative process. An issues management approach also increases the land-grant capacity to serve its stakeholders. Through training and setting an example, institutions can assist 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. The most effective issues management models adopt a team approach that engages senior management.
Adopting a multi-state methodology addresses many elements inherent to the problem. In the instantaneous communication world, one institutions problem today can immediately become another institutions problem tomorrow. This integrated approach supports the sharing of knowledge and experience. Certain universities already do this well already but there is 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 (an element of comprehensive issue management systems), and nearly a third of the respondents were unaware of a plan at their university. Most existing plans are 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.
Existing research in issue management mainly focuses on case study research. There is an opportunity to expand the research body of knowledge in applied issue management practice through survey and experimental design research. Content analysis of case studies is a potential research initiative as well as in-depth communications research that advances knowledge in the theoretical framework for successful issues management.
Objectives
-
Increase the capacity of land-grant institutions to successfully implement a strategic issue management approach to relationship management and communications programming
-
Increase the number of land-grant institutions implementing research-based issues management programs and creating best practices for issues management
-
Enhance institutional communication capacity and the capacity to address problems/potential problems through an issues management approach at land grant institutions.
-
Increase the speed and effectiveness of land grant communicators when reacting to national issues impacting land grant institutions
Procedures and Activities
Strategies to Achieve All Objectives:
" A team approach
" Monthly communication via conference call
" Leverage ACE connections (leadership, media relations groups)
" Graphic illustration of matrix
" Bringing people who are not here to be actively engaged in the process.
We can recruit to our team; engage in conference call; follow up from this meeting; pull-push strategy send something to Deans/Exec Directors to encourage engagement; ACE media relations; and invite people from 1890s and 1994 institutions
" Name a liaison to the 1890 and 1994 institutions; PLN meeting connection
" Determine if 1994 and 1890 travel could be covered by a funding course
" Keep Deans/administrative leaders informed
Objective One: Increase the capacity of land-grant institutions to successfully implement a strategic issue management approach to relationship management and communications programming.
Procedures and activities involved in achieving this objective:
" Assess the body of knowledge
" Conduct a gap analysis
" Create a knowledge repository
" Assess capacity at universities
" Identify existing tools
" Monitor environment
" Identify trends
" Prioritize issues
" Define potential impact
" Make strategic decisions
" Implement
" Evaluate
Objective One Milestones:
Year 2:
" Review Issues Management literature to establish lexicon; annotated bibliography; FAQ on language
" Assess the current state of practice: Who is doing it and what does it look like; IRB approval
Year 3:
" Publish white paper on current state of issues management and how it will benefit your institution
Year 4:
" Evaluate land grant system, looking for impact of issues management process; identify universities who are using issues management and those who are not
Year 5:
" Define strategies for change
Objective Two: Increase the number of land-grant institutions implementing research-based issues management programs and creating best practices for issues management
Procedures and activities involved in achieving this objective:
" Conduct research
" Assess body of knowledge
" Conduct a gap analysis
" Create a knowledge repository
" Develop best practices
" Disseminate through appropriate channels including peer reviewed publications
Objective Two Milestones
Year 2:
" Develop the methodology for the survey of land grant institutions to assess issues management capacity and conduct an environmental scan
" Assess body of knowledge and expand literature review
" Establish a research agenda
" Conduct Meta analysis of case studies
" Identify the best practices existing in other disciplines
Year 3:
" Collect, analyze and report land grant survey data
" Continue scan of tools already in use or under development
" Start development of best practices
" Identify research needs (hypothesis driven)
" Identify areas where we should have best practices and/or need best practices
Year 4
" Establish and pilot best practices
Year 5
" Refine and elaborate best practices
" Publish and disseminate findings
Objective Three: Enhance institutional communication capacity and the capacity to address problems/potential problems through an issues management approach at land grant institutions.
Procedures and activities involved in achieving this objective:
" Initiate a professional development system targeting administrators, faculty, Extension educators, staff, students
" Implement a marketing strategy to inform and engage land grant institutions
" Create an eXtension Community of Practice
" Design a tool kit
" Design a certificate program in Issues Management (Great Plains approach)
Engage 1862, 1890, and 1994 institutions in a collective effort
Objective Three Milestones
Year 2:
" Use trainings/workshops already in system
" Design and issue management professional development curriculum for administrators, communicators, media [talk with national media about major issues]
" Collaborate with SAAS to present professional development track on Issue Management either in general session
" Continue involvement with 1890 and 1994 institutions.
Year 3, 4, 5:
" Continue professional development system
Objective Four: Increase the speed and effectiveness of land grant communicators when reacting to national issues impacting land grant institutions
Procedures and activities involved in achieving this objective:
" Strengthen formal and informal networks through annual meetings, regional workshops and monthly communications.
" Initiate a professional development system targeting administrators, faculty, Extension educators, staff, students
" Implement a marketing strategy to inform and engage land grant institutions
" Create an eXtension Community of Practice
Leverage technology to enhance regular communications and exchange of information
Objective Four Milestones
Year 2:
" Use trainings/workshops already in system
" Design and issue management professional development curriculum for administrators, communicators, media [talk with national media about major issues]
" Collaborate with SAAS to present professional development track on Issue Management either in general session
" Continue involvement with 1890 and 1994 institutions.
Year 3, 4, 5:
" Continue network building and rapid response system
Expected Outcomes and Impacts
- Outcome 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. Provide issue management training to faculty to provide outreach to clientele e. Conduct research and outreach on public and commodity issues management
- Outcome 2. Create 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
- Impact 1. " Increased capacity and competency among scientists and administrators in land-grant universities (with stakeholder participation encouraged) to manage issues before they develop into crises
- Impact 2. " Decreased institutional and individual liability for inappropriate response to crises
- Impact 3. " Increased potential for success for new initiatives and response initiatives
- Impact 4. Increased effectiveness and clarity in stakeholder relations/alliances Impact 5. Retention of autonomy and influence of land grant institutions and land grant philosophy Impact 6. Reduced issue whiplash and crisis fatigue
Projected Participation
View Appendix E: ParticipationEducational Plan
Several of the members of this group are also members of the Association for Communications Excellence and will be able to have less formal meetings during the ACE annual meeting. ACE does not, however, draw every member to its meeting. This project will connect these groups in new ways. ACE will serve an excellent educational venue, as will the organization's newsletter and journal. The group also will provide the e-newsletter to others who are interested, including NASULGC members.
Organization/Governance
There will be two officers for the group. A secretary and chair will be elected every two years at the annual meeting. The secretary records and distributes minutes of the annual meeting and then becomes chair of the committee for the following two years. The chair directs the activities of the committee, serves as the liaison between the committee and the administrative advisor, and makes arrangements for the next annual meeting. Leaders will be identified by the chair to work with team leaders for each objective as well as more focused task such as the e-newsletter, assessment of communications practices, research agenda development, training curricula, model communications plan development, and presentations at association meetings. These leaders, along with the chair and the secretary, will form a coordinating council and meet monthly by teleconference or other distance technology facilitated by the chair's home institution. Specific individuals will be recruited for the group, including those associated with the National Center for Food Protection and Defense as well as land-grant communicators and communications researchers.
Literature Cited
Chase, W.H. (1984). Issue management: Origins of the future. Stamford, CT: Issue Action Publications.
Crable, R. E., & Vibbert, S. L. (1985). Managing issues and influencing public policy. /Public Relations Review, 11/, 3-16.
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/
Regester, M. and Larkin, J. (2005). Risk issues and crisis management: A casebook of best practices. Kogan Page Ltd.: London.
Whiting, L.R., Tucker, M. and Whaley, S.R. 2004. Level of preparedness for managing crisis communication on land-grant campuses. Journal of Applied Communications, 88(3): 7-20.