Commission on Public Service and Extension Minutes of Meeting on October 16, 1995 Room 1060, Pamplin Hall Members Present: Ralph Badinelli, Steve Parson, Lee Skabelund, Bill Mashburn, Ann Hertzler, Terry Swecker, Norman Marriott, Deb Williams, Kermit Kwan, Pat Edwards Alternate: David Barrett for Clark Jones Not represented: Ted Settle, Doug McAlister, Fred Krimgold, Kevin Fenton, Fred Lamb, Sharon Diggs, SGA, two members representing Extension/public service non-ex oficio A/P faculty 1. The meeting was convened and chaired by Ralph Badinelli. The purpose of the meeting was to preview the partnering presentation developed by the Division of Continuing Education. Harold Kurstedt, supported by Yvette Grant and Gene Gardner, made the presentation and asked for comments. Harold stated that the current plan for the partnering presentation is to release the program sometime in November. Six people will be trained as presenters. They will travel around the Commonwealth and into neighboring states to make the presentation to a variety of industry and civic groups. Eventually, these six people will make two presentations per week, on average. Assuming each presentation reaches 30 people, on average, this promotion will reach a level of approximately 360 contacts per week. Harold further explained that the focus of the efforts of Continuing Education is in building long-term relationships and that the presentation is not intended to sell anything specific. Instead, this presentation is intended to share information with people outside the University and to initiate dialogue with potential partners. After Harold's presentation there was a lively discussion of potential difficulties arising from the plan reflected in the partnering program. Terry Swecker questioned the failure of the plan to integrate Virginia Cooperative Extension into the role of representing the University to the outside world. This point is particularly important as the Commission has discussed at length the idea of making the Extension offices the "front door of the University". Deb Williams questioned whether or not Harold was suggesting that faculty are not responding to requests for continuing education. Harold replied that he expects that 2/3 to 3/4 of the requests for continuing education services will have to be met with people outside the University, because of the low priority that continuing education has among Virginia Tech faculty. He anticipates that this condition will change over time as priorities change. Deb Williams remarked that in the wake of budget cuts, early retirements and increasing demands most departments are already operating at full capacity. There is little room left for responding to requests for continuing education. Pat Edwards expressed the concern that people outside the University may get the idea that Virginia Tech faculty are incompetent if 2/3 - 3/4 of their requests are referred elsewhere. She asked Harold to talk to units on campus that are active in outreach in order to find out what capabilities they have. Harold made it clear that the partnership program that he plans to introduce is guided by the principle of responding to customers of continuing education services as opposed to finding outlets for providers of such services. This responsiveness is expected to require the referral of customers to other universities and to individuals outside of Virginia Tech in most cases. Bill Mashburn argued for a focused marketing strategy that would seek out customers who could make use of the Continuing Education strengths that already exist at Virginia Tech as opposed to a "shotgun" approach. Harold replied that, to some extent, we can focus on certain markets by suggesting particular kinds of partnerships. Ann Hertzler and Norm Marriott questioned the proposal in Harold's plan to contact the top 100 corporations in Virginia. This plan appears to serve only some of the Colleges and only some of the clients in the Commonwealth who need continuing education services. Ann also questioned the need for social marketing techniques in the development of the presentation so the viewer's interpretation of the pictures could be considered. The images of men in white coats, test tubes and the Hotel Roanoke could be interpreted as evidence of high spending, and thus, result in presenting a negative image. Harold also made it clear that a purpose of his plan is to avoid the duplication of outreach efforts that currently exists. He cited the example of three different people from Virginia Tech showing up at APCO headquarters on the same day without knowing of one another's actions. The claim that the partnering program would alleviate this problem led to more debate. Norm Marriott asserted that the partnering program would only exacerbate the problem by adding one more player to the field. Terry Swecker supported this view. Pat Edwards wondered how many personnel would be needed to support the partnering program and whether or not this allocation of resources would be viewed as duplication of effort. Harold responded by saying that he is under intense pressure from the legislature to demonstrate results from COTA in the near term. He feels compelled to announce several COTA "relationships" before the end of the year. The Commission recommended a few specific changes to the presentation itself. In conclusion, the Commission Chair summarized the sentiments of the Commission into two themes. 1) Harold is operating under a paradigm that dictates response to the customer is the principal performance measure of his organization. Although this approach is well-recognized as a TQM-based plan, its implementation in the continuing education mission of the University without a careful review of who our customers are runs the risk of overselling in some markets while ignoring other clients with unmet needs. If the majority of requests for services are referred to outsiders, the long-term plan for the University's continuing education program is not well served. Furthermore, many customers of the University's outreach programs are not those who can afford to pay for profit-generating services. These clients are likely to be left out of the "new continuing-ed program". 2) The University currently does not have the capacities, capabilities or administrative structure to mount a coordinated, non-duplicative and quick response to the partnering requests that Harold will stimulate. In particular, Virginia Cooperative Extension is left out of the picture ,and no safeguards against further duplication of effort are incorporated in the program. Until these shortcomings are overcome or accommodated, the partnering plan will lead to an embarrassing failure of the Unversity to present its technology-transfer role to the Commonwealth. The meeting adjourned at 3:30.