Draft
(June 19, 1998)
Medium Term Strategic Plan
1999 - 2003
__________________
State Agricultural Experiment Station System
Experiment Station Section
Board on Agriculture
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
Fall, 1998
Table of Contents
A Medium Term (1999-2003) Strategic Plan for the
State Agricultural Experiment Station System1
Summary
This strategic plan2
represents a comprehensive road map of national strategies for the agricultural3
research activities conducted by the State Agricultural Experiment Station
(SAES) System, and in partnership with others. This document communicates
the strategic targets and some related action items we will undertake for
the benefit of the System's users (i.e., customers, consumers, stakeholders,
agricultural leaders, and decision makers). We are looking for new ways
to enhance the System's performance and to report on our research impacts.
Our plan is a dynamic, working document. Periodic up dates will be issued
as needed.
Through this plan the SAES System renews its commitments to the Land-Grant
University's fundamental paradigm that integrates teaching, research and
extension for maximum public benefit. This renewal will allow the System
to provide more concerted efforts when responding to the publicly relevant
issues, previously voiced in successive citizen engagement sessions.
The SAES System has comparative advantages that allow it to provide
publically relevant knowledge and information. Paramount among these is
our long-term collaborations within and among Land-Grant institutions,
and our partnership with the federal government through the USDA's Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). This strategic
plan builds on these relationships, and extends the partnership strategy
in new ways, to serve the public better.
The System also plans to more broadly define its mission to better address
publicly relevant issues, and to provide better research support for the
extension and teaching missions of our paradigm partners. Additionally,
the SAES System will use the five goals4
jointly derived with our partners as a framework for planning national
research activities, and for reporting research results through mechanisms
such as those required by the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993.
The SAES System views itself as an entity greater than the sum of its
parts, as a result of extensive coordinated research project planning and
collaborations within the SAES network. The SAES System is seeking even
greater enhanced performance as a "System." This outcome will be realized
primarily as:
-
Improved scientific quality of our research;
-
Enhanced responsiveness to our stakeholders;
-
More stakeholder relevance in our research activities;
-
Better integration of our research with extension and teaching;
-
Better transfer of new technologies to our intended U.S. users;
-
A stronger partnership with the federal government;
-
Budget requests linked to strategic priorities;
-
More accountability; and
-
Greater public confidence in the SAES System.
To assure the quality of the System's research, its responsiveness, and
its relevance to stakeholders, several significant changes are being implemented.
The SAES System is:
-
Expanding its capacity to engage our customers, to better respond to their
needs;
-
Reorganizing its national research portfolio, to better address our customers'
needs;
-
Expanding its use of peer review, to enhance evaluations of scientific
merit;
-
Maintaining an inventory of national research capacity, to better manage
its strengths;
-
Refocusing its research, to better obtain societal, economic, and environmental
benefits;
-
Building new coalitions, to more fully accomplish its research objectives;
and
-
More vigorously communicating the System's accomplishments and successes.
This plan offers the opportunity to pass to future generations:
-
A more environmentally friendly and sustainable U.S. agriculture;
-
Increased satisfaction with the harvested and processed products of U.S.
agriculture;
-
More nutritious and safer foods for healthier Americans;
-
Improved quality of life for all American citizens; and
-
Stronger families and communities.
At the same time:
-
U.S. farmers, ranchers, and rural communities will benefit from increased
productivity and profitability;
-
The commerce of U.S. agriculture will become more diversified;
-
Consumers will have a safer and more nutritious food supply;
-
The managers of our nation's natural resources will be more informed;
-
Global marketing of U.S. agricultural products will expand; and
-
American jobs will be created.
The SAES System recognizes that the future holds many unknowns, and significant
resource constraints may limit our achievements. Given the public's expectations
for solving the important agricultural, environmental and social issues
identified through our listening sessions, the System's agenda is clear.
And, given past high rates of return for agricultural research expenditures,
these proposed research investments are well justified.
Table of Contents
DRAFT 6/19/98
A Medium Term (1999-2003) Strategic Plan for the
State Agricultural Experiment Station System
Vision Statement
The SAES System will be viewed by its primary stakeholders, and
by the general public, as the premier providers of scientific research-based
agricultural, human, and natural resource knowledge that is relevant, useful,
and timely for addressing current and future problems, and for creating
opportunities to further enhance public well being.
Mission Statement
The SAES System, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
using a decentralized network of participants, provides the relevant and
appropriate scientific knowledge and the research capacity needed for:
an economically viable and environmentally sustainable food, forest, ornamental
and fiber production system; a safe, dependable, nutritious, diverse, and
affordable food supply; and the preservation and protection of natural
resources; all leading to a satisfactory quality of life for all citizens
and their communities. The SAES System will work cooperatively with
academic programs, the extension system, federal and state agencies, and
industry to meet the broader goals of its clientele. We will do this
through the development of new knowledge in the biological, physical and
social sciences.
Background
Strategic planning within the State Agricultural Experiment Station5
(SAES) System has, for nearly two decades, been primarily focused on describing
a national "strategic agenda" of ranked agricultural research priorities.
This process has recently given way to a more integrated approach that
has brought together the Land-Grant University functions (i.e., teaching,
extension and research) to identify common issues leading to action. This
"Issues to Action"6
process involved a series of regional listening sessions followed by a
synthesis of issues leading to a plan of action. The entire activity was
premised on determined efforts to streamline collaborations among the Land-Grant
Universities, and across functions. This most recent cross functional planning
effort has set the stage for a new approach to strategic planning for the
SAES System.
The SAES System is interested in receiving comments, endorsements, recommendations,
criticisms, and points-of-concern in response to this plan as the SAES
Directors organize the System's programs and allocate their resources for
the next five years.
Table of Contents
The Purposes of Agricultural
Research
The Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998 (a.k.a.
the Farm Bill) lists the following management principles as important to
the purposes of agricultural research, extension, and education.
"(d) MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES- To the maximum extent practicable, the
Secretary shall ensure that federally supported and conducted agricultural
research, extension, and education activities are accomplished in a manner
that--
(1) integrates agricultural research, extension, and education
functions to better link research to technology transfer and information
dissemination activities;
(2) encourages regional and multistate programs to address relevant
issues of common concern and to better leverage scarce resources; and
(3) achieves agricultural research, extension, and education objectives
through multi-institutional and multifunctional approaches and by conducting
research at facilities and institutions best equipped to achieve those
objectives."
The SAES System has adopted these purposes as a foundation for this strategic
plan.
In addition, the SAES System, in partnership with the USDA's Research,
Education, and Economics (REE) mission area and its Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), and with substantial customer
input, have identified five strategic goals7.
The five goals are:
-
An agricultural system that is highly competitive in the global economy;
-
A safe and secure food and fiber system;
-
A healthy, well nourished population;
-
An agricultural system which enhances natural resources and the environment;
and
-
Enhanced economic opportunity and quality of life for Americans.
These five goals provide an accurate and well defined framework for the
SAES System's strategic planning efforts, and thus the five Federal-State
Partnership's goals have been adopted for this planning process as well.
Table of Contents
Stakeholder Identified
Needs
In several recent national and regional listening sessions, and through
continuing customer engagements, the SAES System has identified a number
of customer-important needs and priorities. These have been assembled into
a list of customer-identified issues, stated as the need to have:
-
Technologies for reasonable farm and ranch productivity and profitability;
-
Technologies that are integrated, and proven on a realistic scale;
-
Methods of production that are sustainable, and environmentally friendly;
-
Resolution of public and scientific concerns for agriculture's over-reliance
on pesticides and fertilizers;
-
Informed management of our natural resources; including soils, water, air,
and biota;
-
A supply of nutritious and safe foods for all Americans;
-
Answers for growing consumer demands for a reliable, secure, accessible
and affordable food and fiber supply;
-
Research emphasis on technologies that create jobs, and distribute benefits
equitably;
-
Technologies that will allow U.S. agriculture to remain internationally
competitive in the emerging global market place;
-
Management technologies that are more geographically precise;
-
Technologies that add value to harvested products;
-
Technologies that development and enhance the well being of all citizens,
urban and rural; and
-
Knowledge to help individual, family, and community development.
The SAES System accepts the challenge to address these customer-identified
needs, and it will continue to use existing resources, redirect resources,
and seek additional resources to provide science-based solutions.
Table of Contents
Assumptions
This strategic plan rests on a set of fundamental external and internal
assumptions. The external assumptions are:
-
Consumer demand for safe, high quality, accessible, and low cost foods
and other biological products with a diversity of selections will continue
to expand, both domestically and globally.
-
Pressure for the uses of land other than agriculture will continue to increase.
-
Citizen concerns for environmental problems will intensify, many of which
may have links to agricultural practices.
-
Science, in support of agriculture, will operationally continue to become
more global.
-
Concern for the continued vitality of our rural infrastructure will remain.
-
New and better methods will be created for interstate and regional planning
for research, extension, and teaching.
-
New and better methods will be created for documenting and communicating
research accomplishments.
The internal assumptions are:
-
Federal base funding (a.k.a. Hatch Act funding) will continue to support
SAES System activities, and to define the System's membership.
-
The leveraging of federal base funds from other sources will continue to
amplify our resources.
-
The Federal-State Partnership will be expanded to additional federal agencies.
-
New types of partnerships will be organized with the private sector.
-
Stronger collaborations will be formed with the LGU extension and teaching
functions.
-
New and better methods will be created for listening to our customers,
stakeholders, agricultural leaders, decision makers, and supporters.
Table of Contents
Guiding Principles
The SAES System has a heritage of providing relevant agricultural research
results for meeting customer needs, and solving real world problems. It
is also proud of its responsiveness to agricultural production crises and
human emergencies. These characteristics are the hallmarks of the LGUs,
and can be traced to their institutional paradigm that integrates teaching,
research, and extension. And, it is their public service philosophy that
provides the characteristics that distinguish LGUs from other types of
research institutions.
Analyses of rates of return on agricultural research investments typically
exceed 30% to 50 % annually. Few, if any, areas of research pay dividends
that approach those of agriculture. The unique coupling of basic and applied
research activities at the SAESs is said to account for these very high
rates of return.
Considerable experience has been derived from developing the world-renowned
Land-Grant Universities, including the SAES System. This experience has
led to a number of guiding principles for developing a national agricultural
research strategic plan for the SAES System. These principles are:
-
The success of agricultural research is based on a distributed, pluralistic
system. Centralized facilities and programs for agricultural research
are less effective because agricultural constraints and research opportunities
are often site specific.
-
A distributed system for the management of scientific research is essential
for intellectual creativity.
-
The Federal-State Partnership in agricultural research has evolved as a
special and valuable working relationship. Federal base funding is
an essential component for the success of this partnership. It allows
the federal partner to participate in decision making at the regional,
state, and local levels, while leveraging their investments with non-federal
funds.
-
Regional Research affords the SAES system great strategic advantage for
tackling some of agriculture's most difficult social, economic and environmental
issues. These issues are frequently not limited by a State's political
boundaries.
-
The Land-Grant University's paradigm, which integrates teaching, research,
and extension, is globally unique, well respected, and recognized worldwide
as an institutional paradigm worthy of emulation.
-
Configuring national and regional competitive grants, commodity support,
industry grants, and special research grants, along with federal base and
state funding, allows SAES Directors to provide for the immediate
needs of customers while investing in research for agriculture's future8.
-
Each SAES conducts research relevant to state and regional priorities.
Collectively, these individual state research programs comprise the national
research portfolio.
Decision-makers today expect more responsiveness from public programs,
and better measures of impacts and benefits from public research investments.
This expectation requires more informed management decisions on future
outlays by SAES Directors. Directors in turn, must give greater attention
to planning and accountability, while preserving and working within these
guiding principles.
Table of Contents
Environmental Assessments
External Factors:
-
The Global Marketplace. In the post-Cold War era new incentives
for science investments have emerged, with considerable emphasis on global
market competitiveness. Today, many nations are acknowledging the need
to invest in science in order to remain (or become) competitive in the
global marketplace.
-
Urban/Agricultural/Environmental Interface. Population growth and
shifting demographics are impacting agricultural production systems. Significant
land use, zoning, pest management, and resource management issues have
result as from this shift of population.
-
Consumer Demand for Quality and Safety of Food Supply. Recent
outbreaks of food poisoning from E. coil have brought heightened
attention to food safety problems. In addition, concern over pesticide
residues, possible implications from altering the quality of food supplies
through biotechnology, and transmission of diseases from animals to humans
combine to heighten the public's concern on food safety.
-
Evolving Stakeholder Expectations. Commodity representatives, consumer
advocacy organizations, environmental interest groups, non-governmental
organizations, industry leaders, and elected representatives are today
more directly expressing their needs and priorities to SAES scientists
and directors. In the aggregate, expectations vastly exceed the Systems'
available research capacity. Thus, informed management decisions are needed
to best allocate available resources.
-
Structural Changes in Agriculture. The merging of formerly separate
industries in agriculture (e.g. seed and chemicals) and vertical integration
are significant factors causing change in American agriculture. Structural
changes in agriculture result in a multi-modal agriculture. Simplistic
depictions of the structure of U.S. agriculture fail to show the complex
nature of the various types of U.S. farming and ranching enterprises. Moreover,
the diversity of agricultural enterprises is expanding, further complicating
the SAES's system's strategies for meeting public expectations.
-
Expansion of the Clientele-Base for LGU. Changing expectations of
public institutions and the United State's demographic transformation from
the predominant rural/farming economy of six decades ago to today's mixed
economy has shifted responsibilities of the Land-Grant Universities. This
change has caused a constant tension between providing research results
for the needs of traditional production agriculture, and the added research
responsibilities to address natural resource management, environmental
topics, and consumer, family and community issues.
-
Calls for Accountability. Closer scrutiny of public sector
investments in agricultural research is leading to calls from elected
representatives for greater program accountability and more documented
justification for budget requests. Federally, this call is manifested in
the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) which requires federal
agencies to use strategic planning-based impact assessments as a process
for deciding future resource allocations. This requirement is directly
impacting the management decisions of the Federal-State Partnership in
agricultural research.
-
Concerns for Global Food and Fiber Supply and Security. The long
term sustainability of the nation's food and fiber supply is a standing
concern. These concerns are linked to global population issues, and the
need to respond responsibly to the growing worldwide demands for agricultural
products. These demands are projected to increase in the next few decades.
-
The Focus on Sustainability. A major paradigm shift to sustainable
agriculture has occurred in the past two decades. This shift in emphasis
toward sustainability is noteworthy, and represents a significant challenge
for the agricultural research community that cannot be ignored.
-
Private Sector Research. A strong U.S. private sector agricultural
research enterprise has emerged, which by some estimates now accounts for
60% of the annual national investment in agricultural research. This emergence
is causing a shift in the demarcation of research responsibilities between
the public and the private sectors. Much of this change is driven by reinterpretations
of intellectual property rights laws that were intended to encourage private
sector investment in the areas formerly the responsibility of the public
sector.
-
Public-Private Sector Partnerships. Partnerships between the public
and private sectors are evolving to higher levels of collaboration, especially
in the "pre-technology sciences" (sensu Huffman and Evenson). University
partnerships with industry can also effectively transmit new technologies
to the market place and are complementary to extension when properly organized.
-
Declining Farm Representation. Agricultural technology successes
in the past half century have contributed to a decline in the number of
people directly engaged in farming. Related to this trend is the consequent
reduction in the proportion of elected representatives who are farmers,
or even know about farming. This outcome complicates the process of communicating
agricultural research needs, opportunities, and achievements to our elected
representatives.
-
Policy Decisions. The consequences of federal, state, and local
agricultural and environmental policy decisions will continue to complicate
agricultural research choices for program managers.
-
Multiple Claimants. A consequence of having multiple institutional
claimants, each with an agenda, is the pressure to preserve existing patterns
of expenditures. Often, such groups have the political clout to enforce
their demands. Redirection of programs into new initiatives or emerging
technologies, in the face of ever constrained resources, leads to challenges
in research management at SAES's.
Internal Factors:
-
Financial constraints. SAES's financial constraints, mostly resulting
from budget cuts in many states and static federal funding, have forced
tough management decisions at many Stations. Consequently:
- New research opportunities may not be pursued;
- Necessary maintenance is deferred;
- Operating budgets are reduced; and
- Open positions are left vacant.
Due to these financial constraints, it is difficult for the
System to engage in new initiatives or to begin significant investments
in emerging technologies. However, significant redirection of effort have
occurred during the past decade.
-
Extension's Agenda Shift. The SAES's national research agenda may
need to include some research topics that have previously been excluded.
This need is most evident in the SAES relationship to extension, wherein
several major extension activities are not now well supported by research
activities (e.g. Managing Change in Agriculture, Youth at Risk). Not all
extension needs for research based information can be met by SAES's, however.
-
Public and Private Sector Responsibilities. The traditional division
of responsibilities between the public and private sectors is undergoing
rapid change, much of which is driven by new technologies and markets for
goods and services formally provided by the public sector. There remains,
however, a strong need for public institutions to provide public goods
not otherwise provided by the private sector. Sorting out these responsibilities
is a major challenge to both the private and public sectors.
-
Multi-disciplinary Research. Increased demand and expanded opportunity
for multi-disciplinary research teams have caused a shift in the expectations
for collaboration and research management support. This represents a major
challenge to the SAES system.
-
Systems Science Approach to Research Problems. There is an increasing
expectation from research faculty for support of Systems Science research
by management. Systems Science is a more holistic approach to the inter-relationships
of component parts, and differs significantly from the more traditional
reductionist approaches to problem solving.
-
Emerging Technologies. New technologies are emerging
that offer exciting opportunities for agricultural research. Among these
topics are: plant and animal genomic mapping; genetic engineering; precision
agriculture; value-added technologies for harvested products; and applications
of computing and electronic communications in agriculture. These topics
reflect the high cost of many contemporary agricultural research activities.
Currently, the SAES System is underinvested in these and other topic areas,
vis-a-vis needed initiatives and emerging technologies.
-
Paradigm Stress. The current funding stress faced by LGU's is threatening
the fundamental paradigm of the institution, and its SAES component. Institutional
downsizing has created programmatic gaps on many campuses that cannot be
easily filled by reassignments or reorganization. The System's capacity
is threatened by these changes. Survival of many LGU Colleges of Agriculture
and their SAES is a serious concern.
-
Intellectual Property Rights. The management of intellectual
property rights and the associated earned royalties, has on many campuses,
become a serious concern. How these resources can better contribute to
the mission of the institution and the collective SAES system is in need
of attention.
-
Institutional Changes. The evolution of the Land Grant Universities
is bringing significant changes to the structure, organization and focus
of research and education. This shifting pattern of institutional make-up
needs to be recognized in any national strategic planning effort.
Table of Contents
Comparative Advantages
The SAES System has important comparative advantages that contribute
to its strength and uniqueness. The SAES System is:
-
Nationally Distributed, with multiple sites within each state. This
distributed System offers a network of research stations which provide
diverse environments and conditions for research. Having a System of research
stations also permits the early detection and monitoring of agricultural
problems and environmental conditions in ways that support the collective
agricultural research network.
-
A Land-Grant University Participant, in the tripartite mission.
The synergism derived from the institutional integration of teaching, research,
and extension has substantial and well recognized social, environmental,
and economic benefits.
-
A Component of the Federal-State Partnership, in agricultural research.
The System's agricultural partnership with the federal government provides
the basis and definition of the System's membership along with significant
resources for programmatic activities.
-
A Convener for Regional Research Projects. One fourth of the System's
federal funding is set aside for Regional Research Projects. Significant
effort is also devoted to regional coordination projects, many of which
are jointly sponsored with extension.
-
Comprehensive in its Coverage, of the scientific disciplines related
to agriculture, when broadly defined. In addition to the biological and
physical sciences, agriculture research on virtually all campuses has the
capacity to conduct social and behavioral science research, and farm and
business research. This comparative advantage is significant for the System,
when partnering with federal research agencies, where discipline divisions
are often separated as agency boundaries.
-
Linked to the International Scientific Community, through many points-of-contact,
including graduate education. Former students and post doctoral scientists
now working in the international community represent a network of collaborators
of considerable comparative advantage.
-
Continuous in its Scientific Research Capacity, from fundamental
and applied. Research supports our future knowledge needs. The continuum
of applied and fundamental research in the System's portfolio helps to
maintain the System's capacity to respond to current and future needs.
-
Resource leveraged. By virtue of System membership, and as a result
of a willingness to work in collaboration with other institutions, the
research outputs and derived public benefits from the System's activities
are significantly leveraged.
-
Committed to Listening to our Customers. Through direct engagements
and through extension feedback mechanisms the SAES System remains in touch
with the broad constituency it serves.
-
Fundamental to Graduate Education. Research supported by the SAES
System provides the base research program that supports graduate education
in the agricultural and social sciences. These graduate programs provide
a well trained workforce to sustain a productive and innovative food and
fiber system for the future.
-
Well supported, politically. The SAES System receives strong support
from both the U.S. agricultural community, and from the general public.
This decades-long support reflects the tremendous social, economic and
environmental benefits that are derived from investing public funds in
agricultural research.
Table of Contents
Strategic Targets
A set of 8 Strategic Targets, with 32 associated Action Items, will
be pursued by the SAES system over the next five years to address the Federal-State
Partnership's five strategic goals. These Strategic Targets and Action
Items are:
Strategic Target 1. Place greater emphasis on identifying
and serving the needs of stakeholders and clientele.
Action Item: Expand consultation, participatory
planning and stakeholder involvement in program implementation.
Action Item: Emphasize the development of
science-based information, technologies, and knowledge through a diverse
portfolio of priority research activities.
Action Item: Provide knowledge and services
equitably for all citizens, including the historically underserved and
small-scale farming enterprises, for a broad base of service and appreciation.
Strategic Target 2. Improve the effectiveness of agricultural
research management.
Action Item: Share research management approaches
and successful leadership experiences through professional development
programs, seminars, workshops, and in other ways.
Action Item: Develop improved performance and
accountability measures to better assure scientific quality and research
relevance.
Action Item: Develop, maintain, and share methods for documenting
the impacts of research.
Action Item: Maintain an inventory of SAES System's
capacity (human, fiscal, and physical resources) to better plan and direct
activities for solving relevant problems.
Action Item: Verify the quality of scientific research,
utilizing peer review where appropriate, to ensure that research investments
are effectively allocated.
Strategic Target 3. Expand the research capability of the
SAES's to respond to stakeholder needs.
Action Item: Involve faculty-colleagues from non-traditional
disciplines in the conduct of SAES research.
Action Item: Maintain and expand a diversified portfolio
of funding sources for research, including the development of non-traditional
sources of funding.
Strategic Target 4. Expand and reinvigorate our strategic
partnerships.
Action Item: Strengthen our partnership
with CSREES.
Action Item: Jointly plan and conduct research activities
with traditional (e.g., ARS, ERS, FS) and new partners (e.g., private labs,
research-based companies, commodity groups, non-governmental organizations).
Action Item: Develop stronger collaborative relationships with
additional federal agencies (e.g., NASA, EPA).
Action Item: Develop and enhance appropriate collaborative
arrangements with the private sector.
Action Item: Develop and enhance partnerships among states.
Action Item: Provide leadership for expanded international
partnerships.
Strategic Target 6. Be more accountable to stakeholders.
Action Item: Improve the effectiveness of
our communications with stakeholders, including legislators and the public.
Action Item: Directly contribute to the reporting
requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
Action Item: Support the SAES System's growing commitments
to Image Enhancement, jointly with the Extension Committee on Organization
and Policy (ECOP).
-
Strategic Target 7. Couple the processes of national strategic planning
with federal budget development and advocacy.
Action Item: Create a process for consensus building
on a limited set of strategically important national priorities.
Action Item: Provide a process for identifying national
initiatives, suitable for concerted promotion.
Action Item: Join with ECOP to plan and promote common
priorities and initiatives.
Action Item: Work with CSREES in the "outyears" to
identify joint budget priorities.
Action Item: Identify areas of emphasis to
be targeted with additional formula appropriations from congress
Action Item: Work with other federal agencies in
support of their budget requests, when those requests are congruent with
the priorities of the SAES System.
Strategic Target 8. Organize the national research portfolio into
a set of discrete programs.
Action Item: Give the SAES System's diversity
of disciplines a voice in the creation of a consensus ordering the research
portfolio's programs.
Action Item: Reorganize the Experiment Station Committee
on Organization and Policy's (ESCOP) Technical Committees for greater cost
efficiency and effectiveness.
Action Item: Partner with the professional society activities
(e.g., FAIR 2002, CROPS 99) for planning national program activities.
Action Item: Liaison with commodity groups to establish
agreed programmatic priorities, for mutual support.
Action Item: Charge the identified program areas with responsibility
for: monitoring and projecting needed capacity; planning research activities;
and reporting accomplishments.
Implementation of
This Plan
Implementation of this plan of this plan will be through: individual SAES
activities; jointly sponsored regional research projects; multi-institutional
collaborations; and ESCOP-sanctioned activities. Much of this plan's implementation
will be done in collaboration with our traditional and new partners.
Implementation through ESCOP will be done as ESCOP-sanctioned committees
and task forces, working in concert with federal agencies, other "COPs",
and the professional societies. Cost efficiencies and project effectiveness
criteria will be applied to all ESCOP-sanctioned activities, on a continuing
basis. Advisory oversight for all activities will be provided by CARET,
industry, and commodity group representatives.
Organization of the national research portfolio into a set of national
programs will be done under ESCOP's leadership with attention to maintaining
a balance between desired representation and the costs of participation.
Each program will be charged with responsibility for:
-
maintaining an inventory of programmatic capacities;
-
planning for program activities; and
-
for reporting program accomplishments.
This configuration will allow a linking of:
-
Program planning activities to resource needs;
-
Resource needs to budget requirements (and thus to SAES advocacy efforts);
and,
-
Program investments to research outcomes and benefits (for GPRA reporting
and Image Enhancement).
Expected
Benefits of This Plan
The SAES System views itself as an entity greater than the sum of its parts.
The SAES System is seeking even greater enhanced performance as a "System."
This outcome will be realized primarily as:
-
Improved scientific quality of our research, through greater employment
of peer review methods;
-
Enhanced responsiveness to our stakeholders, through better processes for
listening to our stakeholders;
-
More stakeholder relevance in our research activities, by improved priority
setting methods;
-
Better integration of our research with extension and teaching, through
more joint planning and implementation;
-
Better transfer of new technologies to our intended U.S. users, thorough
stronger research support for extension;
-
A stronger partnership with the federal government, through expanded communication
and support;
-
More accountability, through GPRA reporting and the ESCOP/ECOP Image Enhancement
activities; and
-
Greater public confidence in the SAES System, through better communication
with the public.
Evaluation of the Success of This Plan
The aggregate outcomes, benefits and impacts of the SAES System in the
next five years will be documented through the reporting processes of GPRA.
Milestones and indicators for this purpose will be selected in partnership
with CSREES. Annual GPRA reports will be made public through multiple channels.
This information will be supplemented with professionally crafted ‘Image
Enhancement' documents, suitable for communicating the SAES System's successes.
These documents, along with customer satisfaction surveys and assessments
of trends in various sources of funding for the SAES System, will be the
additional measures used to evaluate the success of this strategic plan.
Other Action Steps
-
Work jointly with partners to find ways of being flexible and adaptive
in response to change.
-
Work with our functional partners on the development of a longer-term strategic
plan.
-
Develop an advocacy plan for the SAES System.
-
Participate in the national and regional plan for communicating with the
public.
-
Base our future SAES System annual budget requests on programmatically-based
priorities and plans.
Footnotes:
1. The membership of the SAES System includes the
State Agricultural Experiment Stations affiliated with the 1862 Land-Grant
Universities and the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station at New
Haven; and the agricultural research programs at the 1890 Land-Grant Universities
and Tuskegee University.
2. The process used for developing the consensus positions
represented in this document started with a series of national and regional
listening sessions supplemented by other information resources. From these
sources the ESCOP Subcommittee on Strategic Planning, which has representation
from SAESs, extension, teaching, and USDA/CSREES (i.e., the federal partner-agency),
identified a set of issues which were coalesced into a draft strategic
plan. Subsequent cycles of review and revision have contributed to a national
consensus on these proposed strategies.
3. Agriculture, as used herein, is defined broadly
to include all aspects of food, fiber, ornamental, and forest production,
processing and consumption. The term agriculture is also used herein to
relate to broad public responsibilities for preserving natural resources
and protecting the environment, and serving the needs of all of the customers
of agriculture; as individuals, families, and communities.
4. The five goals are: An agricultural system that
is highly competitive in the global economy; A safe and secure food and
fiber system; A healthy, well nourished population; An agricultural system
which enhances natural resources and the environment; and Enhanced economic
opportunity and quality of life for Americans.
5. The membership of the SAES System includes the
State Agricultural Experiment Stations affiliated with the 1862 Land-Grant
Universities and the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station at New
Haven; and the agricultural research programs at the 1890 Land-Grant Universities
and Tuskegee University.
6. See Issues to Action: A Plan for Action on Agricultural
and Natural Resources for the Land-Grant Universities. The Board on
Agriculture, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges, 1996.
7. Actually, the REE plan calls for a sixth outcome
that relates entirely to human capacity development within the REE mission
area, and thus it is not directly relevant to this research planning exercise.
8. For an analysis of these relationships
see W. E. Huffman and R.E. Just, "Funding, Structure, and Management of
Public Agricultural Research in the United States," Journal of Agricultural
Economics, November 1994.
Table of Contents
end of document