Strawman/Papers

External Review Of
Northeastern Multistate Research Portfolio

Report From The Panel

to the Northeastern Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors (NERA)
and the
Cooperative State Research, Education, And Extension Service
(CSREES)
U.S. Department of Agriculture

September 8-10, 1999
800 9th Street SW
Washington, D.C.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The panel to review the current Northeast multistate research portfolio confined its evaluations to the terms of reference provided and focused on programmatic issues rather than on individual projects that make up the portfolio. Topics that received recommendations were:

Stakeholder listening: the panel recommended revisiting earlier admonitions to base stakeholder listening activities at the state level, giving more thought to regionally-organized stakeholder listening for multistate research program management.

System dynamics: the panel recommended that strong consideration be given to the successful integration of teaching, research, and extension activities as a strategy for success, by building on opportunities for fulfillment of the Land Grant University’s fundamental paradigm of functional integration.

Communications plan: the panel recommended that NERA consider developing and adopting a strategic communications plan that would address three broad constituencies: users, customers, and patrons.

Project approval processes: the panel recommended reengineering the project approval processes to reduce the time required from the present two years to three months, and more frequent use of the Series 500 authority.

Role of participants: the panel recommended better definition of responsibilities of the participants in multistate research projects, supplemented with training and educational efforts.

Priority setting: the panel recommended implementation of the NERA document on criteria for setting regional priorities, perhaps through inclusion of statements on the four criteria in future project outlines.

Exit strategies: the panel recommended establishing a policy that no project be allowed to be renewed; and, as a corollary, all projects receive approval for an amount of time appropriate to complete its objectives; and additionally, that all projects be held to the high standard of having focused objectives with well defined outputs, outcomes and milestones.

Current portfolio assessment: the panel recommended that a close look be given by the NERA Regional Research Committee to the apparent redundancy of some projects; and it recommended, as related to NE-009, that CSREES be asked to study comprehensively the management of all germplasm resources, with a view to establishing a National Research Support Project (NRSP) for germplasm management.

Follow-up: the panel recommended that NERA commit to the development of a plan to implement appropriate recommendations found in this report; and schedule an accomplishments report for the panel at some interval in the future.

REPORT FROM THE PANEL

INTRODUCTION

The external review of Northeast multistate research portfolio was conducted by a panel of five persons (see Appendix 1). The panel was assisted by Dr. David MacKenzie, Executive Director, Northeastern Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors (NERA), Dr. George Cooper, Deputy Administrator, Partnerships, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), and Dr. John Nye, Vice Chair, NERA. A sixth panel member from the social science discipline was unable to participate in the meeting. The terms of reference for the external review are given in Appendix 2. The charge to the panel was the 10 specific questions in the terms of reference for the review, which was mutually supported by CSREES and NERA. In addition, other questions were asked and recommendations were made with the goal to facilitate cooperative-collaborative multistate research programs.

It was emphasized initially that cooperative-collaborative multistate programs are critically important to agricultural research. Research accomplishments are many and the panel recognized the significance of Land Grant Universities, Agricultural Research Service, and others that have contributed significantly to the accomplishments. Research scientists, directors, administrative advisers, and CSREES National Program Leaders are instrumental to the total process. Acknowledging the positive impact and continuing need for the program constituted the foundation for discussion and recommendations that were made. The goal was to strengthen a vital program by proposing positive, practical recommendations.

The panel felt that the following language from the 1998 Farm Bill (Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998) (AREERA) should be emphasized in the report as setting the stage for legal requirements as well as expectations of the system:

"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 panel members’ discussions, deliberations and recommendations recognized the complexity of the problems of identifying research priorities, identifying adequate funding for research, implementing efficient and effective management of the process, and being responsive to stakeholders while complying with legal requirements and maintaining scientific credibility. With these parameters in mind, the panel wishes to stress the following points.

The recommendations made by the panel need to significantly challenge the system.
Increased stakeholder participation is not only legally mandated but was recommended as a wise and beneficial action for the system by the panel.
Money and research talents are limited in the NERA institutions and the limitations are greater in some institutions than others. These limitations increase responsibility to manage programs for optimum results or accomplishments. Decisions at Land-Grant Universities are driven by the need to meet teaching, extension, and research priorities. Thus, a research priority may be sacrificed to meet a teaching responsibility.
Current multistate research projects are inadequately funded. The panel agreed that NERA probably had too many projects (judged by funding patterns) but found it difficult to target one specific number as optimum. However, the panel was unable to determine if a reduction in the number of projects would result in increased funding for remaining projects. With the many factors affecting funding and funding sources, research priorities, and expertise availability, the panel could only raise the question and to encourage the NERA Directors to continue to closely monitor the multistate portfolio.
Although State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAES) are effectively cooperating in multistate research programs outside the formal approved project system, this effort is not captured in the current reporting system.
NERA has authorized projects that contribute to the multistate research portfolio. Other regions have scientists participating in this research. Also, NERA scientists contribute to the other Regional Associations' multistate research projects. The total mix of projects (all multistate projects) must be viewed as NERA stations’ contributions to multistate research.
There is a need for a process that addresses the issue of potential duplication of research among the regions. The former Committee of Nine (C-9) played an important role in regards to an overview of duplication of effort among the regions as well as a communication link back to each Regional Association. NERA Directors and CSREES are urged to be proactive in finding a way to fulfill the functions performed by C-9.
The panel did not study any project in detail from a scientific viewpoint or for technical merit. The study of the mix of projects and their objectives was more from a global perspective.
CSREES National Program Leaders must be active participants in multistate research projects. A cooperative and collaborative role with Administrative Advisors is viewed as positive.
It is important to the success of multistate research that CSREES and NERA work in harmony and in a collaborative and collective effort. It is an opportunity to emphasize the true nature of partnership in the Land Grant tradition.
The panel felt that considerable pressures were present on the system and that there was a need for action. The economic picture for agriculture in the next century, technological changes influencing agriculture, consumer expectations and international competition are issues that will not allow the system to be slow in responding to needed research, improved efficiency of process approval, and management requirements. Multistate research needs to be more timely and responsive, and should be managed and approved in a more efficient manner.
Actions need to be taken immediately by NERA and CSREES to address the recommendations. Current efforts of ESCOP and other regional associations may modify who has the responsibility for implementing the recommendations. The recommendations when implemented will require additional leadership from the Directors. Information is provided in Appendix 3 that describes opportunities for increased efficiency.
In order for any recommendation to have an impact upon the system, it must be accepted and implemented either by NERA, CSREES or both. The panel has attempted to write this report with that philosophy in mind.

STAKEHOLDER LISTENING

Provisions in the AREERA of 1998 require the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate regulations that prescribe a process to "solicit and consider input and recommendations from persons who conduct or use agricultural research, extension, or education." This group has been subsequently referred to as "stakeholders," which is an ill-defined category of individuals, institutions, and interests.

The stakeholder is one that uses or benefits from "deliverables" generated from production, processing, social, economic and environmental research from the agricultural research programs. They are the customers of the system. The stakeholder can not control the system, but they must have the opportunity to influence the system. The responsibility of stakeholders is to define the deliverables needed by them. In the process of defining the deliverables, and in seeing a response by the system to address the needs, increased ownership will occur. With increased ownership of the research program, the system should expect increased efforts to provide the needed resources.

The panel recognized the need to segment the broad category of "stakeholder" into "direct users of research," "intermediate and ultimate consumers of research," and the "sponsors of the research conducted." Each of these categories of stakeholders may require different approaches.

Meeting this federal regulation for stakeholder listening will require specifics that will be found only in the final regulations, but in anticipation of that, the panel asks if consideration should be given to possible strategies for compliance.

One strategy, presented as a recommendation in the report to ESCOP entitled "Implementing the 1998 Farm Bill" (July 1999) would have all stakeholder listening "be the responsibility of the participating stations, and not involve the regional or national associations." The report further states that "the regional and national associations may have an important role to play as a clearinghouse for information useful for managing the multistate research portfolio."

Inasmuch as no rationale was given for the recommendation to ESCOP, the panel assumed the underlying reason for state-based stakeholder listening was cost control. We suggest that this may be unnecessarily narrow reasoning, and we offer an alternative approach that we believe warrants consideration, namely, a regional-based activity.

The initiation of a program to listen to stakeholders on a regional basis offers potential positive and negative effects. The positive effects include:

Better use of resources and the reduction in clientele encouraging each state to duplicate efforts and required resources.
Better communication among stakeholders that results in greater shared information among states.
Increased support for the system at the Federal level when the stakeholder observes the direct benefit of cooperative-collaborative research.
Increased understanding of the working process of the system, which should reduce misinterpretations and unrealistic expectations.
The effective identification of issues the stakeholders bring from their industry or group. This could require SAES research programs to jointly plan staffing needs more on a multistate basis. Teaching and extension components would need to be factored into the equation. Sometimes the issues identified may not be research issues, but are needs to synthesize existing information and provision of trained personnel.
The identification and better understanding of the proper roles for the research system personnel and the stakeholder. For example, stakeholders should have the best knowledge of the issues that are causing them the greatest problem, but they should not try to develop the research plan to solve the problem. Some problems of the stakeholders are not researchable, and this must be understood.
The movement away from the problem of the moment for the industry or stakeholder to a more comprehensive view of the needs of the industry is encouraged.

The potential negative effects include:

If improperly conducted without continuous effective follow-through, the process could result in increased criticism of an individual, individual state, or the total system. Once a process is initiated to gain stakeholder input on a regional basis, a planned monitoring and feedback process to obtain implementation and continuity is critical.
reating unrealistic expectations that "good" and "productive " research can result by just cooperating more than in the past. Such items as clear and focused objectives addressing the critical issues, the correct scientific talent for addressing the issues, adequate resources and facilities, etc. remain critical requirements for effective state or multistate cooperative research. The efforts of multistate research must be effectively coordinated.
Increased administrative time will be required to communicate, coordinate and facilitate research as well as stakeholder understanding. All directors, departmental administrators, scientists, and extension personnel need to be supportive of the concept and avoid the typical response that " it has to be done at my station."
Real success in multistate research planning, coordination, implementation, and results will increase expectations for the system rather than decrease it. Although increased expectations from the system could be very positive, a negative effect could result if the system starts a process and does not deliver. Most knowledgeable stakeholders know that a single university can not do everything, yet the system may not have accepted this understanding as well as some of the stakeholders. The single university accepting the concept to allow another university to take leadership is often clouded by the need to teach and respond to clientele pressures within a state. To effectively initiate a multistate listening and responding process the SAES Directors need to bring the Deans and Teaching/Extension Directors into the planning and implementation process.

The pool of stakeholders of the SAES research program is large and varied. The system must recognize that:

Variability exists among the states in effectiveness and efficiency of stakeholder input and in stakeholder support;
Certain clientele groups have close ties, and others feel disenfranchised; and,
University loyalty is both an asset and a detriment to the process of stakeholder input on a regional basis.

The system needs to be mindful of these issues and others as regional input is encouraged. The stakeholders for certain commodity and interest groups already function on a multistate basis. Other stakeholders may not be organized within a state, much less on a regional or multistate basis. Identification of multistate organizations and the assessment of their success in functioning on a multistate basis are needed. This identification and assessment allows an effective basis for developing strategy for multistate stakeholder input. Moreover, one scientist or extension specialist with a considerable clientele following can nullify any joint cooperative effort if he/she does not support it. Cooperation and support from system personnel is just as important (or maybe more) as is that from the stakeholders.

Several ways exist to receive stakeholder input. These include:

Continue to function as you are now functioning.
Allow each state university to assemble the priorities as they perceive them for multistate research and then have each state to bring its priorities to the region for planning purposes.
Encourage the system (not on an individual state basis) to interact with multistate functioning groups with the objective to explain the research underway in the region and hope the issues and current research meet.
Go to each stakeholder group and ask what is needed. This would generate a list of needs but would not generate priorities.
Accept a new approach to receiving input that requires a different kind of leadership on the stakeholder part, and a different mode of operation on the part of representatives of the system.

The panel recommends the concept described in the last bullet listed above, and envisions the operational process as follows:

Initiatives should be taken to develop the leadership or encourage the current leadership to conduct a program that identifies the critical issues of the stakeholder group. The stakeholders are responsible for this effort and the SAES (and others) should be supportive of their efforts. It is the stakeholders responsibility to bring the industry (group) together to provide for the synthesis of needs and establish their priorities.
The role of SAES personnel (as well as CES and others) is to listen. The university personnel should not develop a response to the needs identified until the listening process is completed.
A follow-up forum should be provided for the stakeholders and the research community to discuss the current research program underway in the region. The identification of the objectives (goals) for the research program should be emphasized.
A joint assessment of the critical voids should occur. This is an excellent time for the identification of problem areas that may not be researchable.
The system should determine if it can respond to the needs identified by the stakeholders.
The stakeholders are provided a response by the research community on how they can respond to the list of needs. Careful attention should be given to efforts occurring in other regions on multistate research.
The active program, with stakeholder groups participating, will require at least annual meetings, which provide the opportunity for input and dialogue. The commitment for an on-going effort is essential.

State Agriculture Departments and Cooperative Extension working to assist in organizing stakeholders could occur as a coordinated effort. A partnership with the State Agriculture Departments would facilitate having people invited to the discussion table, who will represent their respective organizations. Unless the research system can clearly identify the organizations which are functioning and properly organized, there is significant opportunity for splintered effort and varying opinions of need.

The research system has the opportunity to seek new support and increase the validity of the SAES system, as being a system responsive to needs of their stakeholders. New efforts are needed, but before initiation there must be the commitment to follow through, and contribute the time necessary to nurture the process. This recommendation concerning stakeholder input and generating increased ownership is the foundation for many of the panel's other recommendations.

COMMUNICATING POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS

Communication of the plans, the activities, and the accomplishments of multistate research projects is the most effective way to secure broad and positive support for the program. The panel believes that even before a project is begun – indeed, when it is still in the early development stage - it should be promoted and "marketed" to select audiences.

Furthermore, the communications involved must be comprehensive, two-way, and exist for the life of the project. Communications that acknowledge stakeholder priorities should commence at the outset of the planning process, be in addition to promoting the project, and should solicit continuing dialogue from appropriate and relevant stakeholders (this issue is discussed at greater length elsewhere in this report).

Each project must be able to:

capture its accomplishments in an articulate manner;
identify the outputs and outcomes;
state the overall anticipated impact; and,
project the social, environmental, and economic benefits.

The Region needs to have the ability to collate and aggregate certain data in order to demonstrate the collective success of the regional multistate research program. The bottom line here is accountability: we can assess the input; what about the output?

It is the observation of the panel that the multistate research program of NERA is inarguably and demonstrably effective. The projects use good science and generate useful and relevant results. These successes, however, seem to fall into the category of "well-kept secrets." The very excellent multistate research program in the Northeast is neither producing the enthusiasm, nor receiving the acclaim, that it deserves.

To remedy this, the panel recommends that NERA consider developing and adopting a strategic communications plan that would address three broad constituencies: users, customers, and patrons. Such a plan should encourage the transmittal of specific messages to specific audiences, e.g., a single project might generate a regional briefing for USDA officials, but focus on a State-specific outcome for a particular member of Congress. This same project might produce a very different type of message for the end-users who benefit from its results.

It is worth considering engaging the services of professional communication specialists or marketing experts. In the long run, outsourcing this responsibility may be cost effective. The types of communications that should be discussed include news releases, public service announcements, letters to the editor, editorials, popular articles in state and local newsletters and magazines, and verbal/written communication to policy officials, local and state government officials, and legislators.

The panel believes that the accomplishments of the regional research program of NERA are many and excellent, but the panel encourages the NERA Directors to give heed to adequate reporting and communication. We exist in an extremely competitive world: the best science in the world will not advance us a single step if no one knows about it.

RE-ENGINEERING THE PROJECT APPROVAL PROCESSES

The approval of the typical multistate research project is a complex and cumbersome process with many time-consuming steps that must be sequentially completed. Currently, the formal approval of a multistate research project requires two or more years of effort (endnote 1), unless extraordinary effort is expended. This lengthy approval process stems from the sequential steps that must be completed prior to launching activities with the beginning of any given federal fiscal year. The panel feels this duration is too long and must be contributing to the perception that the SAES research portfolio is unresponsiveness to stakeholder needs.

The panel notes several opportunities to greatly shorten the duration of the project approval process, to as little as three months. These modifications all comply with existing and anticipated CSREES multistate research procedures and would be mostly compatible with the other corresponding regional associations’ procedures. Some suggestions are: (Estimated time-savings, in months, are given in parenthesis)

Omit from the approval process the "request to write" as a requirement (endnote 2), by empowering any NE SAES director to initiate preparation of a multistate research project outline, under general guidelines (4);
Develop mechanisms to speed the commitment of scientists years (SYs) and other resources to a project;
Instruct the NERA Executive Director to serve as a facilitator for all ad hoc technical committees when drafting project outlines, working directly with the project’s administrative advisor (4);
Speed the peer review process by having the NERA Executive Director oversee all project outline peer reviews and subsequent revisions (2);
Rely more on Internet (i.e., e-mail, World Wide Web) communications technologies for proposal development and other communications;
Encourage the Regional Research Committee (RRC) to utilize electronic balloting, whenever possible (3);
Delegate to the NERA RRC the authority to approve peer-approved project outlines for the Association (3);
Request from CSREES the authority to approve all Association sanctioned multistate research projects (2); and,
Initiate multistate research projects at anytime during the year (i.e.,eliminate fiscal year restriction)(3).

Total savings in time from these changes could result in projects being approved in as little as three months.

Even still, in some cases, spending three months to approve a multistate research project may not be quick enough. The panel notes the existing provisions to create ‘Series 500’ multistate research projects by two or more SAES directors working in agreement, with virtually no delay. However, it is also noted that this option has never been exercised in the Northeast, and only rarely in other regions. The panel asks if other less visible factors are working against procedures for rapid project development.

In this light the panel recommends a comprehensive self-study of options for fast tracking project ideas into implementation, giving consideration to the points cited above and a self-assessment of factors contributing to the current patterns of project approvals. The targeted intent of the self-study should be to find ways to diminish (mis)perceptions regarding the degree of responsiveness to the needs of stakeholders by the region’s State Agricultural Experiment Stations, especially when working in collaboration.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND APPROVAL

A changed approach to project management and approval offers opportunity for:

increasing efficiency;
focusing research objectives to allow better definition of outcomes; and,
dealing with the issue of project termination.

The panel recommended projects be managed under the following guidelines:

The research objectives should be strongly focused with a clear statement of the time required to accomplish those objectives.
The projects should automatically terminate at the end of the approved period.
Projects should be approved for the length of time required to complete the objectives. If it takes 20 years to complete the project, then it should be approved for that time period; if it takes only three years for completing the objectives, the project should be approved for only three years. Yearly evaluation of projects would be required, and if changes in resources and scientist participation should alter the opportunity for successful completion of the project, termination would be appropriate.
New projects should originate from a new effort each time, rather than ongoing revisions.
Stakeholder participation should occur in each project. Stakeholders might be represented by just one or two individuals. Their responsibility would be for continuing feedback to the industry or the interests they represent. Extension should be considered for a similar role, if interest in this process is evident and supported.
In the end years of the multistate project, the committee should plan a day for reporting to stakeholders and extension personnel its progress in meeting the stated objectives.
The committee should expect to meet a requirement for marketing the outcomes from the research.
Opportunities for adjustments in the project must occur. If very specific objectives are stated, there is the opportunity for possible solutions to be generated by other research agencies, industry, or international centers. Adjustments to objectives should occur to avoid continuing effort and expenditures in a "solved problem area".
The definition of the role of each of the managing partners is a critical step. The research community is responsible for conduct of research and appropriate protocol. The stakeholder role should be to facilitate communication with other stakeholders and serve as source of feed back on the results being obtained as appropriate for their interest.

The next section more extensively address the need for definition of the role of the many individuals, groups, and agencies (institutions) in the system.

ROLE OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE SYSTEM

The desire for stakeholder input, CSREES responsibility for accountability and enhancement of multistate research programs, the increased responsibility of Directors to facilitate programs that are outcome driven, and the need to communicate results requires that the roles for each participant be reviewed and stated for the benefit of the system. Changes must occur in the system. Therefore, the panel recommends that the following actions be taken:

Define management roles for:
1. Administrative Advisors
2. Departmental Administrators
3. National Program Leaders
4. Executive Director
5. Associations
6. Coordinating Committees
7. CSREES Partnerships Office

A clear understanding of responsibilities would help prevent redundancy in duties and would streamline the management process. It is recognized that management duties may shift as the redefinition of role changes the scope of responsibility. However, new electronic technologies may provide opportunities for increased efficiencies (Appendix 3). Some suggested changes are:

Have Directors serve as Administrative Advisors with Department Heads serving as Co-Administrative Advisors for the multistate projects.
Re-emphasize the importance of NPL participation at critical times of the projects life cycle (e.g., initiation, revision, and termination).
Initiate training for personnel to:
- help them meet the mandates of the 1998 Farm Bill; and,
- address the gaps in expertise caused by turnover in the work force

MIX OF MULTISTATE PROJECTS

This panel believes that the current multistate research portfolio is germane to the needs of the Northeast Region. However, mechanisms must be available to:

address new and emerging issues in a timely manner;
terminate completed projects, or those which have become diminished in priority; and,
provide over-arching guidance from a national perspective

The complementation of other regions’ research activities by the Northeast Region is facilitated by cross-region participation in regional projects. It is expected in the proposal review process that potential overlap from other regions is examined. However, there is currently no formal structure to provide this oversight (previously provided by the Committee of Nine). In addition to complementation, competition is also present. Because of limited resources and the fact that the system is set up on an accounting system rather than a scientific system, competition is unavoidable.

Concerning gaps in research, several areas can be identified, such as issues pertaining to environmental concerns of a regional nature, land management, food safety, and safe water. Whether or not these issues are of higher priority than existing research areas needs to be determined.

ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT PORTFOLIO

The panel took responsibility for evaluating the makeup of the current Northeast multistate research portfolio, as suggested by the questions in the Terms of Reference (Appendix 2). The panel used for this analysis the summary write-up of the existing project outlines, and thus the analysis may not be entirely valid. Nevertheless, the panel’s conclusion was that some projects appear to overlap other projects, indicating the possibility of duplication, or alternatively, opportunities for project merging for greater collaboration.

The projects that appear to overlap are:

NE-60, NE-127, and NE-138
NE-103 and NE-179
NE-162 and NE-167
NE-165 and NE 185

The panel recommends that the NERA Regional Research Committee give a close look to these sets of projects to resolve any (apparent) redundancies.

In addition,the panel noted that NE-009 appears to be an anomaly in the present mix of Northeast multistate research projects, in that it is not research per se but more characteristic of a National Research Support Project (NRSP). Therefore, the panel recommends that consideration be given to requesting CSREES to conduct a comprehensive national study of germplasm resource management to include existing and needed coordinated activities with ARS, CGIAR/IARCs, and others. Options might include formation of one comprehensive NRSP on germplasm, planning strategies with partners on germplasm collection, preservation, and utilization, and developing collaborative germplasm projects with public and private partners.

NEW PARTNERS FOR RESEARCH PROJECTS

The panel believes strongly that new partners are essential for the ongoing success of the multistate research program. New partners have the potential to bring with them funding, talent and capacity for multistate research. More specifically, new partners:

will help generate a broader constituency and a broader stakeholder base;
will increase the pool of human talent and capacity for regional research;
will help to provide a diversity of approaches and viewpoints; and,
can lead to more effective resource utilization by providing unique or scarce disciplinary expertise, rather than requiring one of the existing SAES's to recruit and hire the same.

As with any partnership, adding new participants to a regional research project will require thinking through the process and weighing pros and cons. Some items that NERA may wish to consider include:

Governance: the panel proposes that new partners be given equal rights and authority as full partners. This will be viewed by new partners as an inducement and will help to foster buy-in from all participants.
Timing: new partners will contribute the most if they are brought in as early in the process as possible. This is true for all partners, but is likely to be especially true for extension professionals.
Coordinating Committees: less formal organizations may be a useful option for attracting the intellectual stimulation that comes with new partners. Coordinating Committees (CC) tend to be less formal and less bureaucratic than Multistate Research Technical Committees. For this reason CCs may be more appealing to certain potential partners. A concern here, however, is that it is not always easy to track the progress and accomplishments of a CC, and for this reason, it is difficult to use them to satisfy multistate research or integrated activity requirements from the 1998 Farm Bill.

The panel believes that the current number of active Coordinating Committees in the Northeast is less than optimal. Recognizing that most Directors are already handling one or more Administrative Advisorships for either CCs or Technical Committees, and this may be imposing a limit on the number of CCs, the panel recommends that consideration be given to naming Department Heads as Administrative Advisors to certain CCs. The SAES Directors, in NERA as well as in the other regions, should give consideration to the difficulties inherent in working with Federal agencies other than ARS and CSREES. Technical Committees should have easy and clear access to other Federal agencies, including but not limited to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and others. As things currently stand, it is difficult (and sometimes impossible) to enter into arrangements with agencies such as these.
Similarly, the Directors should give serious attention to developing effective mechanisms to attract non-governmental funding to multistate research projects. Current practices are cumbersome and limiting.
If the multistate research program is expanded through the addition of new partners, especially new partners from the private sector, consideration will need to be given to intellectual property rights and the potential for conflicts of interest. In both cases, all parties need to be in complete accord and understanding.

RESEARCH PRIORITY IDENTIFICATION

A cornerstone for strategic planning is the establishment of priorities, and thus strategic planning should work toward the targeted placement of projects in the region's multistate research portfolio. Input into the priority setting process should be broad-based and cognizant of the needs of the under-served and under-represented clientele.

At present, NERA has no apparent mechanism in place to establish research priorities across the Northeast Region. However, all the members of NERA have in-state mechanisms to gain stakeholder input and to set internal research priorities The processes used to obtain this stakeholder input has been recently submitted to CSREES by each station in 5-year Plans of Work. These processes could serve as an information resource for regional planning.

The panel is of the opinion that broadly stated, but outcome targeted, multistate research priorities should be set through a structured process involving all stakeholders in common exercises, such as conferences, surveys, focus groups, etc. at the regional level. We further believe that a mechanism needs to be devised to merge this stakeholder input into a dynamic strategic planning process for NERA. This should yield a Regional Strategic Plan.

A dynamic planning process is essential to the fostering and acceptance of change within the region. The NERA priorities should be shaped to fit underneath the national goals and programs of the Land Grant System and CSREES whenever feasible. The appropriate details of such a planning process are less clear. The panel is most supportive of the first option below:

A sequential process could be devised with: 1 ) broad multistate research priorities established by input from all stakeholders (including customers, SAES administrators, scientists); 2) more targeted priorities in a strategic plan could be developed by SAES research administrators, Department Chairs and selected scientists, and 3) actual research approaches and studies would be designed by the scientists, who will be conducting the research.
An alternative strategy would be to develop research priorities within each state and aggregate and blend these to a common vision for NERA research priorities.
The reverse strategy would be to devise a stakeholder-input process at the regional level and subsequently use these priorities as state priorities.
Another option would be to make the establishment of multistate research priorities a designated activity of a specialized committee of NERA. This committee would be empowered to seek stakeholder input across the region.
An alternative option would be to utilize an outside consultant or designated institution within NERA to obtain input from all stakeholders and provide recommendations on multistate research priorities

Finally, it is crucial that the users of the multistate research results have an integral role in the broad priority setting process, with annual input. This is of paramount importance to obtaining customer support of the overall multistate research effort. It would also aid greatly in identifying emerging research problem areas. Establishing a jointly sponsored CES and NERA stakeholder input and strategic planning process is likewise recommended. This would aid in the integration of research and extension activities and enhance the regionalization of both research and outreach educational activities. This synergy would also magnify the external linkages and networks with stakeholders.

The selection of multistate research projects through the current approval process would benefit from modifications that would make it more responsive to changing needs and emerging problem areas. Just as the stakeholder involvement in priority setting should be straight-forward and legitimate, so should these priorities be a legitimate and integral part of the approval process. These priorities should play a decisive role in the merit review for the relevancy in a proposed project. Thus, stakeholder input would have an indirect impact on the project approval process.

Users of the results of a multistate research project should likewise be involved at the end of each approval cycle. Users should be invited to attend the last annual meeting of the Technical Committee, be given an opportunity to discuss their mutual interests, problems and concerns, and be provided a summary presentation of the project's results, outcomes, and potential impacts.

the panel recommends that NERA consider creating a new category of multistate research projects to make the system more responsive to emerging problems, and to significant problems for a few states but not widespread enough to achieve a high priority throughout the entire Northeast Region. This new type of project could be created by a decentralized process in which two or more Directors could, on their own initiative, establish a joint project in a common interest area. Thus, each SAES Director would have more discretion in creating his/her own multistate research portfolio. However, mechanisms would be needed within NERA to legitimize it as a multistate research project. The ramifications of this decentralization of the approval process would also need careful study by NERA. The panel envisions certain critical elements for creating such projects as:

Two or more states must agree to cooperate;
The SAES Director at one institution must be willing to assume overall leadership and serve as mentor and spokesperson;
A complete project proposal must be developed by the participating scientists;
The proposal must be peer reviewed;
Accountability for resource allocations to the project would need to be established; and,
Progress reports would need to be developed annually.

In the Terms of Reference for this review (see Appendix 2), the panel was asked to address the question:

"Will requirements for stakeholders listening diminish the tradition of individual investigator initiated research projects?"

Perhaps, the panel suggests, but the reverse may occur if the research scientists get to participate in these stakeholder listening sessions. Furthermore, new mechanisms might be created to encourage individual investigator initiated research projects that are responsive to stakeholder-stated needs.

How might we reconcile this apparent difference? Stakeholders would be expected to provide input to the establishment of broad priorities only. They would not be involved in developing scientific approaches or the experimental designs of specific studies. Greater interactions between the investigators and stakeholders might encourage the research scientists to provide more clear insights on the potential outcomes and impacts of their research proposals.

A possible inducement to more individual-investigator initiated research projects might be to create a competitive funding process for a few targeted multistate research projects in NERA, in the problem areas of highest priority.

TOTAL SYSTEM AND STAKEHOLDERS CONTRIBUTIONS

Northeast multistate research program has significant resources for their projects. But research is recognized as only one component of a very dynamic partnership. The true strength of the system is the collaborative efforts of its functional partners. It is critical, as the efforts and dynamics of the partners change, that the resulting outcomes are positioned to be embraced by all the partners.

This panel, in addressing how research must provide for stakeholder involvement and the need to connect producers, marketers, processors and consumers with this research, sees an important role for Cooperative Extension in leveraging the value of stakeholder ownership of these programs. Cooperative Extension in its traditional role of disseminating this knowledge to stakeholders is challenged not only by requirements of the 1998 Farm Bill but by the changing structure and alliances of its many constituencies.

The value of research deliverables must be more broadly communicated. Awareness of research voids in one state can and must be fulfilled by complementary programs in other states. State boundaries must be blurred if the customer's economic, social and environmental needs are to be addressed. CSREES must be administered in such a way as to facilitate this multistate connection through the benefit of these important relationships.

Cooperative Extension can provide linkage and organization to stakeholder associations and groups. Support for research will result from these linkages, but Extension will have to be involved early in a project's development, if they are going to communicate and disseminate the economic, social and environmental value of these deliverables.

How we as public institutions communicate with stakeholders is changing dramatically and expeditiously, with new technology. Cooperative Extension can and should insure that our customers are availing themselves of technology and that we are communicating on the same platforms.

The teaching, research, and extension partnership must be expanded. A consensus on a single mission and vision must be achieved with defined goals for all participants and benefactors. The resulting strategies should result in strengthening the functional components and help in building new interdependencies and support. Linkages with State Departments of Agriculture as well as local governments must be achieved and fostered. Recognizing and communicating the benefits of research for economic development, employment, and quality of life for the Northeast and its communities must be accounted for by the entire system, and serve as a defined goal.

EXIT STRATEGIES FOR MATURE PROJECTS

The panel believes that multistate research projects should have more specific objectives that are focused toward deliverable outcomes. This means that each project must be designed in different time frames. Thus, as noted previously, projects should be approved for varying lengths of time, depending on the effort required to complete the study. In addition, the panel believes that no renewals should be permitted at the end of a project's approval circle, and that the project's progress should be monitored annually with the ability to terminate when appropriate. Also, an opportunity should exist to modify and adjust each project activities, if conditions dictate a change. This will place an additional burden on the Administrative Advisor, the CSREES Representative, and the Technical Committee to effectively manage each project.

IDENTIFYING PRIORITIES

The panel was impressed with the NERA committee’s report entitled "Establishing Decision Criteria for Evaluating Regional Agricultural Research Priorities" (Appendix 4). The panel proposes that this set of criteria could form a useful framework for selecting high priority multistate research project proposals, and the panel recommends that it be implemented. One strategy for implementation would be to incorporate the four criteria into a section of the required project outline, thus providing reviewers and Association members valuable information on the likely fit of the proposed project to the mission of NERA (see recommendation on strategic planning).

FOLLOW-UP TO THIS REVIEW

The panel has given careful consideration to the recommendations contained herein but acknowledges that more thought needs to be given to specific activities for their implementation. To this end, the panel recommends that NERA form a task force to develop an implementation plan for the points contained in this report. And the panel recommends further that a follow-up report be prepared in the subsequent 9 to 12 months for the panel’s information on the progress toward implementation.

In addition, the panel notes the regionally unique conditions and emerging factors that are/will determining the future of the region’s agriculture and rural communities. Some of these outcomes and consequences seem predictable, at least to a degree. Consideration of what Northeast agricultural and rural communities will look like in the out-years should be useful to the Association for strategic planning and priority setting. For this reason the panel recommends that the Association form a panel of scholarly experts to develop a report on the future make-up of Northeast agriculture and rural communities, with a 20-year time horizon.

Endnotes:

The typical sequence for a project’s development, with estimated interval months in parenthesis, are: identification of a director/sponsor (nil); preparation of a ‘request to write”(2); approval of ‘request to write’ (2); project outline development (6); peer review (2); revisions (2); Regional Research Committee’s review and recommendations (2); Association’s approval (nil); additional revisions, if needed (2); submission to CSREES (1); CSREES review and approval (2); interval to October 1 (3); total 24 months, or two years.
It could still remain as a selectable option for those contemplating a project for development, and wishing to get a ‘reading’ from the Association before committing extensive time to its development.

APPENDIX 1

Northeast Multistate Research External Review Panel Membership

Dr. Walter Woods (Chair)
8318 Strathmore Lane
Roanoke, VA 24019
phone: 540-366-0852

Dr. Melinda McClanahan
USDA/ARS/NPA
1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150
Fort Collins, CO 80525
phone: 970-229-5557
fax: 970-229-5565

Dr. Glenn Gray
USDA/CSREES/PAS
Room 841 Aerospace Building
901 D Street, SW
Washington, DC 20250-2220
phone: 202-401-4202
fax: 202-401-1602

Mr. James Vincent
L-Brooke Farm
7275 Batavia-Byron Road
P.O. Box 100
Byron, NY 14422
phone: 716-548-2474
fax: 716-548-2852

Dr. Ralph Otto
USDA/CSREES/NRE
Room 812 Aerospace Building
901 Dst SW
Washington, DC 20250
phone: 202-401-5877
fax: 202-401-1706

APPENDIX 2

TERMS OF REFERENCE

External Review of the Northeastern Multistate Research Portfolio

Preamble:

The USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) and the Northeastern Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors (NERA) are jointly sponsoring an external review of the region's multistate research activities. This document sets out the terms of reference and charge to the panel for that review.

Background:

New requirements found in the 1998 Farm Bill for federal formula funds changes the name of these activities to Multistate Research Fund, and adds requirements to conduct 'multi-disciplinary', 'multistate', 'multi-institutional', and functionally 'integrated activities' at expenditure levels not less than 25% of the federal allocation, plus the required state match. Combinations of these activities can be 'double counted' in that, by example, 'integrated activities' may also be 'multistate'. The 1998 Farm Bill also requires formal stakeholder listening and the development of Plans of Work, which are expected to complement other federal reporting requirements of the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act.

CSREES and NERA see these changed requirements as an excellent opportunity to review the current portfolio of activities, evaluate plans for complying with the 1998 Farm Bill, and to receive recommendations for improving our decision making and program performance, given the available resources.

Review Process:

We are anticipating a three-day face-to-face meeting of a five-member review panel. The panel will be asked to prepare a written document of their consensus findings and their recommendations for strengthening the region's 'multistate' and 'integrated activities'. Stakeholder input and participant involvement in the review process will occur through representation on the review panel. Assistance in assessing stakeholder satisfaction may also be supported by one or more of the Regional Rural Development Center.

Documentation to be Provided:

To conduct the review, panel members will be provided with:

The project-by-project summary documents of the current NE portfolio, with emphasis on:
- problem statement,
- project objectives,
- esearch milestones,
- anticipated outputs and outcomes, and
- project participants. Appropriate sections of the 1998 Farm Bill;
Implementing the 1998 Farm Bill, a Report to ESCOP by the Farm Bill Implementation Task Force;
The URL for the Summary of Proposed Guidelines for AREERA Plans of Work (reformatted from the Federal Register); http://www.escop.msstate.edu/workroom/powsum.htm
The URL for the Experiment Station Section's Medium Term Plan; http://www.escop.msstate.edu/workroom/stratplan9-98.html
The URLs for the NERA Strategic Plan and the Rules of Operation; http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/nera/aboutNera/strategicPlan1996_2000.cfm http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/nera/aboutNera/rulesOp/rulesOp_071998.cfm
The NE Regional Priority Committee's report on Establishing Decision Criteria for Evaluating Regional Agricultural Research Priorities;
Final Report on the Northeast Capacity Inventory;
Northeast Multistate Research Programs (FY97) CRIS Data by Project, GPRA Goals/Objectives, and State
Northeast Multistate Research Programs (FY97) CRIS Data by GPRA
A draft of the Multistate Research Manual (under development);
1998 Project Annual Reports and Technical Committee Meeting Minutes.

Charge to the Panel:

The membership of NERA and our partner agency are interested in an evaluation of current and proposed process for the management of the NE multistate research portfolio and the mix of current projects, given alternative opportunities.

Some specific questions that are of interest to this review's sponsors are:

How might research priorities be identified and projects identified by NERA in the future? Will requirements for stakeholder listening diminish the tradition of individual-investigator initiated research projects? How might we reconcile this apparent difference?
Does the Association need an exit strategy for 'mature' projects?
Where can efficiencies be found for the management of research activities, such as project approvals, revisions, project advising, etc? Do our proposed changes to the management of projects and the portfolio provide useful improvements?
Is the current mix of our multistate "investments" rational and sound? How might we maintain a better balance of our investments? Are we complementing the other region's efforts, or competing? Are there needless gaps in the total program?
Should we be seeking new partners for our research projects? Are any of our current requirements or processes limiting participation by other partners?
How might we better engage Cooperative Extension in our project activities? Do we need new models? New procedures? New priorities?
How can we join with extension in their activities? ditto
How might we do a better job of listening to our stakeholders with a regional perspective?
Is the present mix of NE research projects optimum? If not, how might it be optimized?
How can we better communicate the positive contributions that are being made with our regionally sponsored multistate research program?

Venue:

The location for the panel's meeting will be the office facilities of CSREES, in Washington, D.C.

Timing:

The panel's face-to-face meeting will be on September 8-10, 1999, starting at 1:00pm on the 8th and ending at 3:00pm on the 10th. The panel's final report will be available for distribution to the NERA members at the NERA meeting on September 30, 1999, in Memphis, TN.

Access to Directors/Executive Director:

The NERA Executive Committee, the Chair of the NE Regional Research Committee, the Chair of the Northeast Regional Priorities Committee, and the Association's Executive Director will be available for the panel, if so requested by the panel to participate. This interaction may occur through conference calls, pre-review surveys, or direct interaction with the panel. SAES Directors serving as Administrative Advisors to particular projects may also be called upon to answer specific queries by the panel members.

Support:

To facilitate and support the review process staff of the NERA Office of the Executive Director will be made available to the review panel.

Expected Product:

The review's sponsor expects from the panel a written report containing assessments and recommendations for the improvement of the management and performance of the Northeastern Multistate Research portfolio.

APPENDIX 3

Fixing Responsibilities While Gaining Efficiencies

The panel recognizes that many of its recommendations would be made as additions to current NE SAES Director responsibilities. One likely consequence would be diminished efficiencies of the region’s multistate research activities. To this point the panel reflected on how the Northeast Region might reconcile these legitimate concerns.

SAES Directors’ potential overburdens need to be offset with reassignments where ever appropriate. To this end the panel proposes that a thorough reassessment of multistate research management responsibilities be made, with a view to more balanced assignments. This should include load assessments for administrative advisors, CSREES representatives, academic department administrators, the Executive Director, the association, ESCOP, and others. Training opportunities should follow delegations of responsibilities.

Some suggested options include:

Use of academic department heads as administrative co-advisors on multistate research projects;
Delegation of administrative advisor responsibility for coordinating committees to academic department heads;
Delegated attendance by either the administrative advisor or the CSREES representative (i.e., not both);
Delegation of project approvals to the regional research committee;
Delegation of more duties to the NERA Executive Director; and,
Requests for more policy and program attention to multistate research by ESCOP.

To attain greater management efficiencies, more attention could be given by NERA to the applications of electronic technologies. This might help to off set some of the anticipated additional responsibilities, enhance productivity, or lower costs of operations. Some suggested examples are:

Greater use of off-the-shelf task management software;
More use of video streaming and video conferencing for meetings; and,
More electronic exchanging and archiving of documents.

APPENDIX 4

Establishing Decision Criteria For Evaluating Regional Agricultural Research Priorities

Northeastern Regional Priority Committee

Northeastern Regional Association Of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors

Introduction:

The Northeastern Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors (NERA) created the NE Regional Priority Committee with the purpose to "recommend to the NERA membership a focused agenda of multistate research activities". To address this charge the committee has prepared the following document that offers four criteria that we propose could be used to decide regional priorities.

Approach:

Selecting the topics for future research investments in agricultural science requires a rational that is defensible, and a process that is, for the public sector, completely transparent. This document sets out a system of points-to-consider that could make up a new approach to setting criteria for decision making on resource allocations.

The fundamental goal for setting agreed-to-decision criteria for allocating public sector agricultural research should be to gain the largest possible returns on research investment.

This then requires consideration of four factors:

There must be a congruence between the dimensions of the intended topic and the allocation of research resources. Larger impacts can be expected by investing in topics that already have a large base in agriculture, forestry or rural development (e.g., wheat, hardwoods, community services), rather than trying to start from a smaller base (e.g., edible amaranth) or a regionally distributed environmental issue rather than local or state. This requires that some congruence analysis be done.
The allocation of resources needs to directly reflect the needs of the intended stakeholders and customers. This requires us to be listening to our customers.
Judgements are needed on what is feasible to accomplish through agricultural research, and this needs to be grounded in the best possible science. This in turn mandates some evaluation of the scientific potential of proposed research approaches by knowledgeable scientists.
Projections of expected benefits are needed to permit informed choices of alternative allocations. These must be done with a set of assumptions that are understood by the participants and the claimants to the system, and are broadly agreed upon. Ex ante estimations need to go beyond economic consequences to the non-economic benefits and consequences of technologies (i.e., social, environmental). Assigning premium or discount coefficients to economic projections can do this.

To accomplish this process several activities will need to be undertaken in sequence.

Much of the information needed for the congruence analyses is available through the CRIS system as current outlays. Additional information will be needed on specific commodities and production sectors. Some decisions will be needed on the values to be used for non-production programs such as human nutrition, food safety, youth at risk and environmental concerns.
Customer listening information can be derived from recent and current sources, including: the regional listening sessions; from the joint ECOP/ESCOP futuring activity; and the USDA/REE GPRA process that included regional hearings. Other sources can also be drawn upon, as needed.
Technical judgements on the feasibility of research approaches may need a new methodology that reaches out beyond peer review to obtain the perspectives of knowledgeable scientists (perhaps listening sessions or focus groups) and to gather information and data for further analysis. This may be one of the most challenging aspects of this new approach.
Projection of benefits and consequences will require the commissioning of specialists knowledgeable in the modeling of economic concepts and analysis of projections for validity and accuracy. This might be done as a competitive grant component of this exercise.

Application:

Any new criteria for judging regional priorities should be applied only to new project proposals and requests for renewals. This stipulation is important during any period of transition to a new system of project review and approval.

Implementation:

Planning for the implementation of any new criteria to be used for setting regional research priorities will await agreement to proceed by the membership of NERA.

This report was discussed and accepted at the February 1-3, 1999 NERA meeting in Washington, DC.

NERA

Northeastern Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors