A few posts ago I mentioned that I had been thinking about the relationship between strategic initiatives, statewide programs, program teams and work groups. The reason for thinking about this stems from all sorts of comments and questions I have heard about the topic since arriving at UC ANR. Here's where I am at in my thoughts on the subject; I'd love to hear what others think.

Strategic Initiatives (SI) are issue based with clear desired outcomes identified by each SI. It's possible that there is overlap in some of the desired outcomes between different SI. The issue tackled by each SI is relevant to a broad audience of group of stakeholders. I see these functioning at a high altitude, say 30,000 feet, for example.

Statewide Programs and Institutes (SP-I) are issue based (e.g. water, integrated pest management or nutrition policy) or targeted at a more specific audience but tackling multiple issues (e.g. Master Gardeners, youth development or 4-H). The SP-I strive to affect change that contributes to outcomes that may reside within one or more SI. It is unlikely that a single SP-I has all outcomes within a single SI. These function at the 20,000 foot level.

Program Teams (PT) are much like SP-I in that they work on a narrower set of issues or serve a narrower set of clients than that addressed or served by SI. The scale of effort is likely different between PT and SP-I. Again these might function at the 20,000 foot level. Presumably there is not redundancy between SP-I and PT or if there is, I would have to wonder why that is the case and what value PT and SP-I see in having both present.

Work groups (WG) are small and even more specific in their effort and audience served. I see these as working at the level of a specific activity or event and likely fluid in membership as events and activities arise and sunset. Having a means to communicate and work together is absolutely necessary to accomplish events and activities and certainly such activities contribute to behavioral changes that affect outcomes. But I have to think that outcomes may best be assessed and reported at the PT or SP-I level. A WG is a subset of PT or SP-I and any given WG may work together routinely as a result of a common audience.

So that's what I have come to understand. I welcome other thoughts on the topic particularly because I am trying to determine how best to gather aggregated outcome data and behavioral change data. It seems to me that the PT or SP-I is the place to do this because, again, I would see the WG as being a fluid group of people that form around a specific activity or event. The sum of events, activities, educational opportunities is what affects change more so than any one of those actions on its own. This isn't to say that individual actions and reports aren't important but rather to recognize that the sum of the parts is greater than an individual piece and as we seek to bring benefit to everyone across the state, there's value in lumping rather than splitting our impacts and outcomes.

I do want to thank Delta Airlines for providing me with an extended period of time to put these thoughts to paper. While I remain optimistic I will see Sacramento tonight, I think I had better go stake out some floor space, just in case.