Area Of Expertise Teams:
The Michigan Approach to Applied Research and Extension
Arlen Leholm
Associate Vice Provost and Extension Director
Internet address: leholm@msue.msu.edu
Larry Hamm
Chairperson and Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics
Internet address: hamm@pilot.msu.eud
Murari Suvedi
Associate Professor
Department of Agricultural and Extension Education
Internet address: suvedi@pilot.msu.edu
Ian Gray
Associate Vice Provost and Director
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station
Fred Poston
Vice Provost and Dean
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Internet address: poston@pilot.msu.edu
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
Introduction
Agricultural Experiment Stations and the Cooperative Extension Service have a
long history of contributing to the economic, social, human, and environmental
capital of the United States. Despite this, these two institutions in recent
years have experienced declining federal budget support and increasing
competition for resources (Hamm, 1997; Hood & Schutjer, 1990; Knutson & Outlaw,
1994; Paarlberg, 1992). Additionally, Agricultural Experiment Stations have been
criticized for not being system-oriented and Cooperative Extension Services have
been criticized by stakeholders and members of the university community as
reflective of a bygone era and not likely to meet the future needs of an
information society.
Linking Extension and research functions has been a considerable challenge to
land-grant institutions. In this paper, an argument is made that a seamless
interface between Extension and research is the key to meeting the future needs
of an information-based society and that self-directed work teams have potential
to make the seamless interface possible.
Michigan State University Extension, in partnership with the Michigan
Agricultural Experiment Station, has implemented self-directed area of expertise
(AOE) teams as its major educational development and delivery model. AOE teams
grew out of experiences with previous temporary research/Extension teams and
quick response professional groups operating within traditional line
responsibilities for research and Extension units. AOE teams are different in
that they are a continuing means of defining priority. AOE teams are more
permanent in their life span; more self-directed in their operation; more tightly
linked with public leaders and groups; more integrative of research
demonstration, education design, delivery and evaluation; more dedicated to
enhancing their knowledge skills and capacity; and more empowered with resources.
All support systems - including staff development, personnel, budgets,
communications, technology and evaluation - were redesigned to serve the
educational programming needs of self-directed teams. Administratively directed
program areas in Extension were eliminated and their operating budgets were
invested directly to the AOE teams.
A coalition structure replaces the traditional administrative oversight and
direct-line management from college, departments, and Extension program areas.
The coalitions are composed of department chairpersons, Experiment Station and
Extension directors, and selected leaders, who operate as a group to seek
resources for the AOE teams and to assess and encourage their performance. The
creation of a full range of AOE teams across the research and Extension mission
and creation of the coalitions bring research and Extension into the most direct
relationship with needs, opportunities, and expectations of Michigan citizens.
Self-directed Teams
The concept of self-directed work teams evolved out of a need to improve
organizational performance in both the private and public sectors. Traditional
vertically and hierarchically structured organizations have been considered too
slow and cumbersome in responding to changing conditions and competition
(Deeprose, 1995; Fisher, 1993; Orsburn, Moran, Musselwhite, & Zenger, 1990). Such
organizations often lacked innovation and creativity and often failed to take
advantage of perspectives, experiences, and creativity of employees providing
products and services to clients.
Self-directed work teams have emerged in recent years as a solution to these
deficiencies. The self-directed work teams place decision-making and
problem-solving authority in the hands of persons closest to the product or
services being created and provided (Orsburn, et al., 1990; Quick, 1992; Wellins,
Byham, & Wilson, 1991). In private sector companies, where self-directed work
teams have been creatively employed, product/service and market improvements have
been achieved, productivity has been enhanced and customer satisfaction has
resulted. Other benefits include enhanced quality, cost reduction, innovation,
better use of employee's talents, and organizational responsiveness to change.
Typically, there has been a companion change in company
organizational/administrative structure and operation from management of
predefined tasks and processes to support of team problem solving and
improvement.
Literature on organizational development suggests that the self-directed work
team approach is beneficial to Extension-type organizations. It enhances staff
motivation and retention, develops the organization's credibility with
stakeholders, provides a larger pool of skills from which to draw statewide,
allows programming on current issues, supplements but does not replace the role
of specialists, increases networking among staff members, and increases
organizational self-esteem.
During the past four years, Michigan's Extension and Experiment Station have
undergone both operational and structural changes. Today, educational programs
are planned and delivered through self-directed work teams of Extension educators
and Experiment Station researchers. AOE teams are connected by technology and
empowered by their own leadership.
At Michigan State University, an AOE team is a highly trained group of Extension
and Experiment Station employees fully responsible for planning, implementing,
and evaluating educational programs in a self-directed manner. Most teams have 10
to 20 members, with every member of the team sharing responsibility for
performance. Team members develop a specialty through a series of in-depth
training and educational opportunities and integrate knowledge from several
disciplines. Recognition and compensation are increasingly linked to team
performance.
Among the Extension educators on AOE teams are both university faculty members
with statewide Extension/research responsibility and Extension agents with county
or multi-county responsibility. Trades for expertise among AOE teams allow for
both agent specialization and diverse program coverage.
The Michigan State University AOE teams were formed as a result of external
demands from stakeholders and internal recommendations from the 1992 Empowerment
Committee of Michigan's Council of Extension Agents (Guikema, 1994). The field
crops, livestock, and dairy AOE teams were launched in early 1994. The AOE
approach was expanded in 1995 to include teams for children, youth and families,
and community, natural resources, and economic development. The AOE teams address
issues in rural, urban, and metropolitan environments.
A total of 18 teams now operate across the mission of Extension and the
Experiment Station. AOE teams target dairy, livestock, fruit, vegetables,
ornamental and landscape plants, field crops, farm/firm management, land use,
forestry, water quality, community development, economic development, state and
local government, tourism, leadership development, family strengths, youth
development and 4-H, and food, nutrition and health.
AOE Implementation in Michigan
The AOE teams were formed as a result of stakeholder demand. Michigan
stakeholders were asked, "What would characterize an exemplary 21st century
Extension Service?" They responded by stating they want a quality, cutting-edge
educational product from Extension and the Experiment Station that is timely and
customer-focused with a multi-disciplinary systems approach to problem solving
(Hathaway et al., 1994). Stakeholders do not distinguish Extension programs from
research programs.
Michigan responded by involving its stakeholders in the design and implementation
of customer-focused, self-directed AOE teams. As an initial action, some
"boundary conditions" were established for the organization and operation of AOE
teams. The boundary conditions suggested for use by AOE teams were:
- AOE teams have co-chairs; one from the campus and another from
off-campus. The on-campus co-chair has a joint research-Extension faculty
appointment or responsibility.
- AOE teams develop their own micro-vision, mission and operating
procedures.
- AOE teams have an interdisciplinary, problem-solving, customer-oriented
focus.
- AOE teams develop a plan for program delivery and curricula for staff
development.
- Involvement of stakeholders is expected, including stakeholder
information input for program/project selection, direction and evaluation.
- Each AOE agent member has an opportunity to select a mentor.
- AOE teams are expected to be entrepreneurial and generate resources for
enhanced programming.
Next, Michigan stakeholders were involved. They were asked to articulate a broad
vision for the future in the context of the primary educational role they wanted
Extension and the Experiment Station to have for the advancement of their
industry or interest group.
Then, the "Developing A Curriculum" (DACUM) process was used as an initial step
in creating the general areas of competency in both technical and process skills
for an agent to be an effective AOE team member (Nelson, 1988). Extension
educators and specialists who excel at their jobs were asked to explain in their
language what they do and how they do it, and to develop a skill profile of what
an Extension worker must be able to do on the job. These DACUM results were used
to build curricula for staff development and for developing job descriptions for
new AOE team members. Stakeholders were involved in reviewing the DACUM results
and provided input on the general areas of competency expected and required for
an AOE agent. The DACUM process helped develop internal and external ownership of
the AOE teams and their educational functions.
The AOE teams are connected administratively to the broader university through
coalitions, some in place and functioning, and others in development. Coalitions
provide oversight for applied research and Extension and are comprised of
department chairs, regional directors and associate directors, directors of
Extension and the Experiment Station. The coalitions help connect departments and
campus and field personnel and provide a seamless tie between research and
Extension. Coalitions are funded by the vice provost and the Extension and
Experiment Station directors. Coalition funding of project teams has complemented
broader university resources in ways not achieved before.
The dairy and livestock teams are under an Animal Coalition. Similarly, the field
crop, fruit, vegetable and landscape/ornamental teams are under a Plant
Coalition. Natural resources and children, youth, family and community coalitions
are under development.
Organization of AOE Teams
The AOE teams plan, implement, and evaluate educational programs to meet needs of
Michigan citizens in some targeted problem or opportunity area. Each team
includes agents, specialists (those having both Extension and Experiment Station
appointments) and selected others (customers, cooperators, etc.) with interest
and expertise in the area of focus. Within an area of expertise, one or more
specializations may be defined by the team. For example, the livestock team has
beef cattle, swine, sheep, and equine subgroups.
Teams do not have size requirements. Each AOE team must include some campus-based
members with expertise that links to one or more university academic units as
well as agents willing and able to partner with them.
Stakeholder involvement in programming is a key element of the interdisciplinary,
problem-solving customer focus of AOE teams. Representatives of stakeholder
groups are invited to the AOE meetings to provide feedback on emerging needs and
issues facing the industry or interest group. They are also involved in hiring
decisions for AOE team members. Stakeholder representatives have participated on
a regular basis and contributed to the educational programming of AOE teams.
The teams are expected to be self-directed in all aspects of their educational
programming throughout the state. Each team develops plans for program delivery
and team capacity enhancement. The teams are involved in assessing and
prioritizing customer needs, mentoring new team members and developing team
expertise, and planning and implementing an educational response to meet needs.
Teams are also expected to evaluate program impacts and document team progress.
Technical support is available for program evaluation.
AOE team co-chairs provide leadership on a rotational basis (terms are one to two
years, depending on the team's operating procedures). Co-chairs are selected by
the team and serve as facilitators. They are not part of the administrative team
(i.e., director, associate directors and regional directors). Performance
appraisals are conducted by department chairpersons for specialists and by county
Extension directors or regional directors for agents and county Extension
directors, respectively. A particular strength is that input from agents about
specialists and from specialists about agents can be simultaneously exchanged
between department chairs and Extension supervisors during coalition meetings.
A coordinator or coach, who is a member of the administrative team, facilitates
the functioning of AOE teams. The coach helps reduce barriers, is the team
developer/trainer, and communicates within, among, and beyond the teams. Some
continuing coach/coordinator role appears necessary and one coach can serve
several teams. The role of the coach tends to be less prominent as the teams
evolve and mature.
The director's office allocated funds for the start-up of teams. The funds were
used to assess customer needs through focus group interviews, participate in
out-of-state training programs, procure reference materials, acquire computer
software, and so on. Beginning in 1996, teams were provided operating budgets for
their priority programming. Teams have been encouraged to look for external
funding and several have sought and received significant outside resources.
Technology that connects team members is crucial to the success of self-directed
work teams because geographic dispersion is a key impediment to team development
and operation. The AOE team members are connected by e-mail and by two-way
interactive television at a number of locations.
The Experiment Station is a key partner with Extension in serving the educational
needs of Michigan citizens. Both Experiment Station and Extension directors serve
on the coalitions that provide oversight for applied research and Extension
programs. To further ensure close working ties, an Extension associate director
has a joint appointment with the Experiment Station. Many Experiment Station
scientists have joint appointments with Extension and serve on the AOE teams,
conduct applied/problem-solving research, and share research-based information
through training and publications.
Success of AOE Teams
The adoption of AOE teams and related system changes has created the seamless
interface between Extension and the Experiment Station, resulting in increased
capacity to deliver quality educational programs. A 1996 statewide baseline study
of more than 1,600 producers indicated that, within one year of the beginning of
AOE team operation, half of Michigan farmers had heard of the AOE teams and most,
irrespective of farm type, education or income level, expressed satisfaction with
Extension (Suvedi, 1996).
The Animal Coalition has funded a number of project teams, including livestock
and dairy AOE teams that have addressed priority issues identified by
stakeholders. Michigan's dairy industry is now proposing a check-off fee for
additional funding of research and Extension programs. This is in addition to the
industry-sponsored animal initiative that resulted in more than $4 million in
additional annually recurring state funding for the Experiment Station and
Extension.
The Plant Coalition AOE teams have been successful in meeting and surpassing
stakeholder expectations. Numerous projects initiated by AOE teams and directly
involving industry representatives have been launched during the past three
years. Relationships between plant-based agriculture stakeholders and Extension
and the Experiment Station have never been better. The industry attributes much
of this success to the AOE teams. Michigan's plant-based industry has succeeded
in securing a $5 million annually recurring increase in Extension and Experiment
Station state funding to continue the momentum started by the AOE teams and to
address additional key issues facing Michigan agriculture.
AOE teams have developed educational programs on topics ranging from
entrepreneurial education to tourism and from land use issues and employment in
rural areas to economic development in core urban areas. Children, youth and
family teams have partnered with Michigan's Family Independence Agency to deliver
food and nutrition programs to more than 10,000 families annually. Similarly, the
youth development team has partnered with VISTA to deliver youth violence
prevention programs in 13 Michigan counties. Substantial grant funding has
resulted from children, youth and family AOE entrepreneurship. The other AOE
teams are achieving similar successes.
New local funding partnerships have been developed since regional Extension
directors were empowered with staff budgets. These partnerships have offset
losses in federal funding sources.
Conclusion
Extension and the Experiment Station have adopted the AOE team approach to
develop and deliver quality applied research and Extension programs. The AOE
teams have made it possible to eliminate much of Extension's mid-level management
and transfer those resources to team support. The AOE team approach, which
connects field, campus, and stakeholders, and ties research to Extension with an
interdisciplinary, problem-solving focus, has produced results that improve
peoples' lives.
Preliminary feedback from both campus-based and field staff members has been very
positive. A trend of enhanced motivation among field staff members and stronger
credibility with agricultural stakeholders has emerged as a result of the AOE
approach. Improved credibility has translated into renewed pride among many
stakeholders for "their" land-grant university, and this helps assure continued
public support into the 21st century.
References
Deeprose, D. (1995). The team coach. New York: AMACOM.
Fisher, K. (1993). Leading self-directed work teams. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guikema, D. (1994, Fall). Areas of Expertise: Editorial. Michigan Association of
Extension Agents Newsletter, 1.
Hamm, L.G. (1997). Assessing the role of public research and Extension policies
in promoting improved performance of the agro-food marketing system." American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79, 646-650.
Hathaway, I., Draheim, S., Guikema, D., Keathley, D., Kells, J., Leholm, A.,
Mark, C., Ritchie, H., Schauer, W., & Schwab, W. (1994). Area of Expertise: Final
report for MSU Extension. East Lansing: Michigan State University Extension.
Hood, L., & Schutjer, W. (1990). Cooperative Extension's role in shaping the
future of land grant universities. Choices, 5, 22.
Knutson, R. D., & Outlaw, J. (1994). Extension's decline. Review of Agricultural
Economics, 16, 465-475.
Nelson, O. (1988). Using the DACUM approach to identify the content of training
programs. Menomonie, WI: University of Wisconsin-Stout.
Orsburn, J., Moran, L., Musselwhite, E., & Zenger, J. H. (1990). Self-directed
work teams: The new American challenge. Burr Ridge, IL.: Irwin.
Paarlberg, D. (1992). The land grant college system in transition. Choices, 7,
45.
Quick, T. (1992). Successful team building. New York: AMACOM.
Suvedi, M. (1996). Farmers' perspectives on Michigan State University
Extension: Summary report. East Lansing: Michigan State University Extension
Program Support Systems.
Wellins, R.S., Byham, W. C., & Wilson, J. M. (1991). Empowered teams: Creating
self-directed work groups that improve quality, productivity, and participation.
San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
This article is online at
http://joe.org/joe/1999june/a3.html.
Copyright ©
by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315.
Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the
Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in
electronic or print form for use in educational or training
activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications,
electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be
done only with prior electronic or written permission of the
Journal Editorial Office,
joe-ed@joe.org.
|