April 2002
Volume 40 Number 2

Tools of the Trade

Decision Making: An Architect's Model for Extension Applications

Thomas J. Gallagher
Leadership Development Specialist
Oregon State University Extension Service
Corvallis, Oregon
Internet Address: TomGallagher@orst.edu

The challenge for Extension faculty is to provide information to help people make better decisions. Yet the process that people use to make a decision is important, too. For example, Knight (1988) proposes that farmers benefit from using a seven-step process when making decisions related to government programs, and Drake (1993) identifies value in a process for helping couples contemplating divorce. The process used to make a decision may be as important, or more important, than the information available in making a good decision. This article describes a process, used by architects, that has proven highly effective in helping people--individuals, groups, communities--make effective decisions.

Background and Steps

The architect's process is a variation of what has been called the "rational model" of decision making (Stoner & Freeman, 1989). The rational model consists of three steps:

• Define the problem as goals,
• Develop alternatives, and
• Evaluate alternatives and select the best course of action.

I learned the basics of this process as a student of landscape architecture in 1967. One major change, however, was the inclusion of a "gather information" step following "goals" and before "alternatives." This change recognized that landscape design requires a good deal of attention to information, such as about soils, slope, etc.

Since then, I've used this process to help make a variety of decisions, from the design of a regional park to facilitating a forum on salmon policy to structuring an Extension meeting. Now, as a leadership specialist with Extension, I've amended the descriptions of the steps to better fit the various types of people and communities I work with in Extension. The steps I use now are:

• Step One. Identify the values at stake, and set goals to achieve them.
• Step Two. Gather information to understand the context in which the goals are to be achieved.
• Step Three. Create alternative ways to achieve the goals.
• Step Four. Analyze the alternatives, and decide which one best meets the goals.

Once the process is complete, the decision is implemented, evaluated, and information fed back to step one for the next decision.

Architects understand that this type of process provides three major benefits. First, it captures the values of the client, which can then be incorporated into the plan. This strategy increases the client's participation in the process and acceptance of the decision. Second, the process creates a logic framework for the decision that the client can review and makes discussions with the client and other reviewers more efficient and effective. And third, the steps build on each other in a synergistic way.

By starting with values and goals, it is then possible to focus on what information is valuable, and by having clear values and information, it is then possible to produce more creative alternatives. When the first three steps have been completed well, the analysis and decision is much easier.

Using the Process with Complex Problems

Architects have found that one pass through the four steps is seldom enough to address most problems. Thus, they almost always repeat the four steps in a cyclical manner. Four repetitions or cycles are the norm, but I've used two for simple problems and as many as nine for highly complex, "wicked" problems where there is a great deal of conflict about values and information. The guidelines for the cycles follow.

• Cycle 1. Concept Plan. Complete each of the four steps in an overview, schematic way. Architects often use what they call a "charette," a quick and creative pass through the four steps, often with the client participating. The output of Cycle 1 is a sketchy, concept plan with one chapter/section for each step. This concept plan is then sent to any affected parties for review. An implicit purpose of this cycle is to get participants to use the same four steps and language--to share the same logic model.
  
  
• Cycle 2. Preliminary Plan. Incorporate comments from the review into the four sections of the plan, and prepare a higher quality, preliminary plan by gathering more information, creating more refined alternatives, etc. Send this product out for review, too.
  
  
• Cycle 3. Draft Plan. Repeat the process of incorporating review comments and moving the plan closer to final quality by clarifying any goals, gathering any needed information, refining alternatives, etc. Send this official "draft" out for a final review.
  
  
• Cycle 4. Final Plan. Incorporate comments from the final review into the final plan, and prepare for implementation.

There are at least four benefits of using the steps in a cyclical way (Gallagher, 1987). First, the process provides a review phase between steps that permits others, numbering from one to millions, to be involved in the steps as reviewers. In Alaska I was part of a team that used the cyclical process to engage over 600 citizens in development of the state transportation policy plan (Dilley & Gallagher, 1999).

Second, by reviewing each step several times over the course of the cycles, the content of each step becomes more refined and certain. Indeed, the first product is typically very "rough," with each product being more refined.

Third, there is the opportunity at the end of every cycle for the architect, or client, to make a "no-go" decision should the project not be working out as expected.

And last but not least, the process saves time and money. Despite what appears to be more complexity and more meetings, the process when managed well reduces expenses by clarifying what is important (values/goals), gathering only relevant information, generating superior alternatives, and reducing uncertainty about implementation.

Using the Model

The four steps can be used in many ways. They can be the steps a team uses when developing a program and the titles of the chapters in the team's report. They can be the headings on newsprint sheets that are placed around the wall of a problem-solving meeting. They are easily used as the sub-heads on a meeting agenda to address a decision, and I've used them to describe the reason a topic is on the agenda, e.g., "This topic is on the agenda so that the entire group can review the information provided by the working group."

The cycles also are very helpful. When placing an item on the agenda, it is possible to alert meeting participants to the "level" of discussion, from the conceptual discussion associated with cycle 1 to the highly specific discussion associated with cycle 4. The four products of the cyclical process, each with four sections representing the four steps, are useful as a record of the development of and logic for a decision. Because this entire decision logic is available, the post-implementation evaluation can evaluate not just whether or not the goals were achieved, but also the quality of the information, alternatives, and analysis that were the foundation for the decision.

In conclusion, Extension is increasingly being asked to go beyond providing information to helping individuals, groups, and communities respond to the complex problems of our times. Changes in technology, demographics, and the economy, among others, have created a host of "wicked" problems for Extension faculty that require more than just information. The architect's process is a simple but elegant tool that Extension faculty can use to help serve in these changing times.

References

Dilley, M. & Gallagher, T. J. (1999). Designing an effective approach to the public: Alaska's experience. Transportation Research Record, National Academy of Sciences, 1685, 113-119.

Drake, B. H. (1993). Divorce handbook--Tool for decision making. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 31(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1993summer/iw1.html 

Gallagher, T. J. (1987). Problem eolving -- With people. University of Alaska, Cooperative Extension Service/University Press, Lanham, MD.

Knight, T. O. (988). Making better decisions. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 26(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1988summer/a6.html

Stone, J. A. & Freeman, R. E. (1989). Management. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Writing Success Stories for Program Enhancement and Accountability

Rama B. Radhakrishna
Associate Professor of Agricultural and Extension Education
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
Internet Address: brr100@psu.edu

Extension agents are frequently asked to write success stories showcasing their program efforts and/or accomplishments. The purpose of writing success stories is to convey to the stakeholders the problem situation (may include who identified the problem and how it was addressed), Extension program activities, results, and/or impacts. Frequently asked questions in writing success stories include:

1. What content should be included?
2. What should be the length of the story (how many words/pages)?
3. Can charts, graphs, tables, etc., be included? and
4. What opportunities exist to share success stories with others?

The author reviewed over 300 success stories written by Clemson Extension agents. A perusal of these 300 stories revealed several weaknesses.

1. Stories varied in length from five sentences to three pages, suggesting no format or guidelines were available;
2. Stories lacked organization in terms of content, logical flow, and description of the problem; and
3. Stories provided no data to show program activities and were poorly written (sentence construction, grammar, spelling, etc.).

Tips for Writing Success Stories

As a result of the reviews, "Tips to Writing Success Stories" was developed so that agents could do a better job of showcasing their program efforts.

The "Tips" included the following.

1. Rationale (Problem or Issue): Explain in about 10 sentences the need, importance, and significance of your program to the clientele, community, county, and state. In other words, describe briefly the problem situation.
   
   
2. Objectives and Methodology: What do you want to accomplish through your program and what methods did you use to collect information? (Should not exceed 5-6 sentences).
   
   
3. Program Results: What happened as a result of your program? Highlight major or significant findings/results of the program. For example, you may want to include the awareness or knowledge level of participants or what they need in order to solve a particular problem or issue. Using catchy phrases, quotations from participants, or facts and figures helps to get the attention of the stakeholders. Also, you may want to think of charts, pictures, etc., to illustrate the success of the program. (Should not exceed 10-15 sentences).
   
   
4. Program Impact: What impact did your program have on participants, families, and communities? Have people learned new things, and are they using them in their day-to-day needs? Are people doing anything differently than they used to do before? (Should not exceed 10 sentences).
   
   
5. Future Potential: What potential does your program have in the future? Help people understand your program's contribution to the well being of the society. (Should not exceed 5 sentences).
   
   
6. Dissemination: Well-written success stories can be published as "Exemplary Programs" or "Showcase of Programs" or "Programs of Excellence" in newsletters of professional organizations, conference proceedings, local newspapers, Extension publications, Staff Updates, Impact statements, etc., and some even can be turned into a journal article.

Extension administration, cluster directors, and other Extension professionals reviewed "Tips to Writing Success Stories" and were pleased with the format and guidelines. The Staff Development Unit offered several inservice training or workshops for Extension agents on writing success stories and how to use them in showcasing program impact. Cluster directors, in consultation with Extension administration, suggested that agents write at least two success stories each year relative to their major area of program responsibility. In addition, they also recommended that a reward structure be put in place to recognize agents with the top success stories.

Success stories tell our story and provide a qualitative measure of Extension program success. For organizations and its employees, success stories serve as a communication and marketing tool besides improving the communication and/or writing skills of Extension agents. Further, success stories can be used to write impact statements to meet both federal and state accountability mandates.

A Successful Success Story

A success story written by an Extension agent is showcased here.

Small Farmer Crop Intervention Project-Roger Francis, Charleston County, SC

Vegetable crops are an important part of the agricultural landscape in Charleston. Small farmers grow the bulk of the vegetables produced in the county. A major characteristic of most small farms is intensive crop production. Produce from these farms is sold through direct market channels and to local supermarket chains.

Although intensive farming is characteristic of these small farms, income is not steady. Small farmers generally experience significant reduction in income from farm sales during off-production season. The shortfall in income experienced during these periods is directly related to the absence of a diversified cropping system.

The local Extension office undertook a crop diversification project. The goal of the project was to identify and promote the production of suitable cash crops which could generate farm income during the off production season.

An informal study of small farmers was conducted to gather background information such as 1) reaction of growers to possible intervention in their traditional cropping system, 2) get the growers' input on the proposed intervention, and 3) identify adaptable cash crops with excellent market potential.

Crop selection for the project was based on the following criteria: adaptability to the area, maturity dates, and resources needed to grow the crop, and local market demand. To ensure success of the project, only crops with established market demands were planted. The decision to raise a particular crop was made by the grower. Guidance was provided to the growers regarding different crop options and the resources that were needed to produce the crop.

The project started with two growers planting a total of 1.25 acres of strawberries. At present, five growers are participating in the project, of which four are growing strawberries in 9.5 acres. Two reasons for the rapid and projected increase in strawberry production are high returns the growers receive per acre and demand for the crop. All information about production practices and variety selection is provided by the local agriculture Extension agent. Most of the crop is sold through on-farm, ready pick and U-pick. Some are also sold at roadside markets, farmers markets, and local supermarket chains. One grower has started to produce strawberry jam from his crop.

Crop intervention into small farmers' traditional vegetable cropping systems can be achieved successfully. One way of ensuring success is having growers' involvement from the beginning of the program. This will give growers a sense of ownership, thus reducing the risk of the program failing. In addition, having good background information on the grower's production practices and available resources is also very important. The growers should make crop selection and marketing decisions with assistance from the Extension agent. Furthermore, the crop being introduced should fit within the resource base of small farmers.

Biological Training for Poultry Flock Advisors: Training the Trainer

Joseph B. Hess
Internet Address: Jhess@acesag.auburn.edu

Michael K. Eckman

Department of Poultry Science
Alabama Cooperative Extension System
Auburn University, Alabama

Introduction

Most companies involved in poultry production have adopted vertical integration of production and distribution functions. In many cases, actual on-farm husbandry is contracted with an independent farmer, with the poultry company providing birds, feed, and technical support. Poultry companies employ technical specialists called "flock advisors" to visit contract farms to provide assistance with farm management. Advisors are selected from those holding BS degrees in agricultural disciplines or from the public at large.

Poultry flock advisors must have well-developed managerial skills in addition to possessing sufficient technical information to trouble shoot field problems. Continuing training is provided by technical meetings arranged primarily through state poultry associations and Extension efforts. These gatherings tend to be large, multi-company affairs that, although useful, do not foster intensive biological training.

Additional training efforts have been aimed at reaching single complexes (business groups) individually. Advantages of this approach include frank discussions of local problems not possible in a multi-company setting and opportunities for intensive training that may include hands-on lessons. Disadvantages include increased delivery costs to an Extension program associated with taking a program to multiple units and increased travel loads to the Extension specialists and agents involved.

Biological Training Course

In 1993, discussions between a large broiler producer and an allied industry supplier led to the creation of a biological refresher course in conjunction with Extension specialists in the Poultry Science Department at Auburn. This 1.5-day course was designed to review basic poultry biological principles as they relate to broiler production. . Participants included broiler flock advisors, breeder flock advisors, feed mill managers and upper management (broiler managers, live production managers and complex managers).

Emphasis centered on describing why birds respond as they do to environment and management rather than training in the mechanical management of poultry houses and environment. One day of classroom teaching was followed by a half day of hands-on viewing of poultry dissection techniques and poultry coccidial lesions in birds inoculated with cocci prior to the course.

A range of biological topics was reviewed by Extension specialists from Auburn and veterinarians from the allied company. Topics covered included:

• Biological principles in general,
• Unique aspects of the avian species,
• Disease agents and infectious causes,
• Nutritional principles, and
• Management concepts.

A wrap-up session at the conclusion of the course allowed flock advisors to discuss unique situations within their complex as they relate to the course materials. A course manual was delivered to each participant that contained a synopsis of each speaker's slides.

Courses were held both at Auburn University's Poultry Research Farm and at individual complexes, depending on the wishes of the individual complexes involved. Costs of food and materials for the course were borne by the allied company. Course materials were delivered to 23 complexes representing eight companies in seven states. Over 500 individuals attended this course, representing in the neighborhood of 12,000 broiler growers with a weekly output of 22 million birds. Production from these operations represents approximately 14% of U.S. broiler production.

It was hoped that flock advisors completing this course would be better prepared to evaluate field situations in regards to fundamental biological principles. In addition, flock advisors would be better able to field questions from contract farmers on why individual management practices were necessary for improved bird health or productivity.

Phase II Course

Interest in the original course sparked plans for a follow-up course to be delivered to the same complexes. Planning began in early 1995 for an abbreviated 1-day course to review biological principles and challenge participants with field scenario problem solving exercises. The biological review revisited avian biology and nutrition as they relate to poultry production to prime participants for the problem-solving activities included in the program. Classroom instruction was held to less than half the session to leave ample time for group activities.

The problem-solving portion of this program used individual farm field data from the records of the complex being visited. Farm descriptions and production results from several years of broiler growouts for an individual farm (farm identities were not revealed) were reviewed by teams of two to three flock advisors to identify potential opportunities for improvement based on the biological principles discussed in the course. Following deliberations (generally 1 hour), one member of the team was required to present a synopsis of the teams findings. Acetate sheets and permanent markers were provided for the preparation of overheads to display findings.

A resource manual was produced in support of this course that provided background information with references for frequently discussed management topics. Manuals were delivered to each participant and were used in reviewing the problem-solving case studies used. Intentions were to provide a long-term reference in support of flock advisor's efforts to inform farmers. Topics covered in the manual included:

• Chick quality,
• Feed and water quality,
• Health programs,
• Avian biology, and
• Broiler management.

Individual subjects from this manual were released as popular press supplements in eight issues of the Watt publication Poultry Digest over a 2-year period. This extended coverage allowed the authors to reach a greater portion of the poultry industry than could be reached through on-site visits alone.

Conclusions

The programs presented in this series were unique in several respects. First, individual complexes were handled separately to allow for more open conversations about local management issues. Smaller groups allowed for enhanced input from participants in terms of discussion and problem solving activities.

Second, a unique partnership between the poultry industry, an allied industry supplier, and Auburn University allowed Extension personnel unprecedented access to operations on a national scale. In addition, each partner brought expertise to the table, particularly in the planning process, which improved the overall viability of the project. Costs for implementing a complex-by-complex program on a national scale were high, and support of an allied company for this project allowed us to do much more than we would have accomplished alone.

A Contemporary, Color-Enhanced Herbicide Site of Action Bulletin

Aaron G. Hager
Weed Science Extension Specialist
Internet Address: hager@uiuc.edu

Christy L. Sprague
Assistant Professor
Internet Address: csprague@uiuc.edu

University of Illinois
Urbana, Illinois

Introduction

Herbicides are an integral part of many weed management systems in Midwestern states. Repeated use of herbicides that act in a similar manner within the target weed has resulted in the selection of weed biotypes that are resistant to these herbicides. The Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) defines herbicide resistance as the inherited ability of a plant to survive and reproduce following exposure to a dose of herbicide normally lethal to the wild type. The number of herbicide-resistant weed biotypes continues to increase in the United States and worldwide. Heap (2001) reports 252 herbicide-resistant weed biotypes occur in 47 countries worldwide.

Herbicide Classification by Site of Action

The WSSA has developed a herbicide classification based on herbicide site of action. Terminology used to describe herbicide site of action is often cumbersome for growers to comprehend, so we have adapted it into a color-enhanced system where herbicides with similar target sites have similar colors. Herbicide premixes are also classified by target site(s), with identical or different colors where appropriate. This color-coded system is adapted from the site of action classification outlined by Retzinger and Mallory-Smith (1997).

The University of Illinois Extension bulletin, "Utilizing Herbicide Site of Action to Combat Weed Resistance to Herbicides," establishes a color-coded herbicide site of action classification system based on 14 sites of action. This three-page bulletin is intended to enhance the ability of growers to rotate herbicides based on site of action to slow further selection for herbicide-resistant weed biotypes.

The front cover explains the importance of using a site of action classification for herbicide resistance management. The inner table (Figure 1) separates herbicide sites of action into 14 "primary" colors. Herbicide chemical families sharing a particular site of action are coded in shades of the respective site of action family "primary" color.

Figure 1.
A Color-Coded Table of "Utilizing Herbicide Site of Action to Combat Weed Resistance to Herbicides"

The bulletin also includes common and trade names of many herbicides used in Midwest agronomic production systems. The back page of this bulletin includes corn and soybean herbicide premixes, with individual premix components coded with the appropriate color based on their respective site of action.

Rationale

The development of herbicide resistance in weed populations can result in significant economic losses for growers. Growers, however, frequently continue to use a successful herbicide program until it fails instead of proactively implementing herbicide resistance management strategies.

Peterson (1999) suggested the greatest economic loss producers face due to selection of herbicide-resistant biotypes likely occurs during the first year of poor weed control. Shaner (1995) suggested that the long-term economic consequences of herbicide resistance include loss of herbicide performance and shifts in weed populations. Orson (1999) argued that preventing the selection of herbicide-resistant weed biotypes can often cost a producer significantly less than the costs incurred dealing with resistance once it has developed.

Extension and private industry have proposed numerous management strategies to retard the selection for herbicide-resistant weed biotypes, including utilizing nonchemical weed management options (such as mechanical cultivation), crop scouting and rotation, herbicide tank-mixtures, and rotation of herbicides that act in dissimilar fashions (Shaner 1995). Labels of herbicides registered for use in the United States generally do not enumerate the herbicide site of action. If growers elect to implement herbicide rotation or tank-mixtures as a resistance management strategy, information is needed to identify which herbicides act in a similar manner.

Herbicides are frequently categorized into families according to various similarities. Examples of herbicide classification categories include mode of action, application timing, and chemical structure. Herbicide mode of action describes the metabolic or physiological plant process impaired or inhibited by the herbicide. Essentially, mode of action refers to how the herbicide acts to inhibit plant growth. Herbicide site of action describes the specific location(s) within the plant where the herbicide binds. Site of action thus identifies the herbicide target site within the plant. The most common herbicide classification schemes utilize mode of action; however, much ambiguity exists with respect to herbicide classification based on mode of action.

While an understanding of herbicide mode of action is beneficial, classifying herbicides by site of action may be a more useful system from a resistance management standpoint. Herbicide resistance in plants is often due to an alteration of the binding site in the target plant. Rotating herbicides based on these different binding site(s) or site(s) of action may provide a more reliable classification system. As previously mentioned, classifications based on herbicide mode of action are rather ambiguous. For example, classification systems based on mode of action include anywhere from seven to 13 different categories. Some of these systems describe mode of action categories as "cell membrane disruptors," "seedling growth inhibitors," and "amino acid synthesis inhibitors." Rotating herbicides based on these categories could cause confusion among growers. For example, the mode of action category "amino acid synthesis inhibitors" would place the herbicides Pursuit (imazethapyr) and Roundup (glyphosate) in the same family, whereas classification by site of action would place these two herbicides into two distinctly different families, allowing growers to more accurately rotate herbicides for resistance management.

Conclusion

Each year the frequency of herbicide-resistant weed biotypes continues to increase in the Midwest. This, coupled with the decreased development of herbicides with new active ingredients, has made it extremely important to manage current herbicides through integrated management practices. Without the proper strategies in place to delay the selection of herbicide-resistant weeds, growers in the Midwest will likely be faced with fewer weed management options and long-term economic consequences. This bulletin could be considered in an overall herbicide resistance integrated management approach to prevent proliferation of herbicide resistant weeds.

To obtain a copy of the bulletin "Utilizing Herbicide Site of Action to Combat Weed Resistance to Herbicides," contact: Information and Technology Communication Services, University of Illinois, Marketing and Distribution, 1917 South Wright Street, 61820, 1-800-345-6087, acespubs@uiuc.edu.

References

Heap, I. (2001). International survey of herbicide resistant weeds [On-line]. Available at: http://www.weedscience.org/in.asp

Orson, J. H. (1999). The cost to the farmer of herbicide resistance. Weed Technol. 13:607-611.

Peterson, D. E. (1999). The impact of herbicide-resistant weeds on Kansas agriculture. Weed Technol. 13:632-635.

Retzinger Jr., E. J. & Mallory-Smith, C. 1997. Classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies. Weed Technol. 11:384-389.

Shaner, D. L. (1995). Herbicide resistance: Where are we? How did we get here? Where are we going? Weed Technol. 9:850-856.

This article is online at http://joe.org/joe/2002april/ent-tt.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.