A Methodology for Determining Extension Constituent Needs: A Case Analysis in the Forest Products Industry

Introduction

In any successful Extension program, two components are key: awareness of constituent needs and cooperation between service groups. Awareness of constituent needs produces a timely and practical Extension program, while cooperation between service groups extends the scope of the program. Keeping this in mind, the forest products Extension programs at the University of Minnesota, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and Oregon State University faced the following question: were their respective Extension programs meeting their current constituent's needs?

Past forest products Extension programs centered around production and manufacturing topics. A changing raw material base, as well as changes and restrictions on harvesting timber, have challenged the forest products industry with new obstacles. Questions that deserved attention were: what were these new obstacles, and did these new obstacles require different programs from the Extension service? Working together to answer these questions, Oregon, Minnesota, and Virginia surveyed the forest products companies in their states as a first step toward improving their service to the public.

This paper details a methodology for determining Extension constituent needs. Methods for collecting data, segmenting an industry, comparing by state, and identifying appropriate training media are explained. These methods could be applied across many Extension disciplines.

Beforte this work, few specific needs assessment studies of the forest products industry exist. Bratkovich and Miller (1993) examined the educational needs of 32 innovative Ohio sawmill operators. They followed Borich's (1980) needs discrepancy model in a mail questionnaire to determine need. This model consists of an importance rating and a knowledge rating: Educational Need = (Importance Rating - Knowledge Rating) x (Mean Importance). Bratkovich and Miller's questionnaire contained 67 forest products related questions with a discrepancy scale of one to five for importance and for knowledge. Their results showed that the areas of forest products marketing and environmental awareness had the highest need. Specific categories in these areas include lumber prices, environmental laws, exporting lumber, motivating personnel, and sawmill waste.

Training methods were also examined by Bratkovish and Millert (1993). Their results showed 50% of the respondents preferred one-on-one training, 28% preferred group training, and 22% preferred self training. In a related industry, Riesenberg and Gor (1989) found that the agriculture industry also prefers training with personal interaction.

Research in Oregon examined the educational needs of Oregon's sawmills. Respondents stated that training was important to a skilled workforce, increasing productivity, and producing management qualified people. The survey categories that ranked the highest included quality control, safety, manager training, and maintenance. Respondents also suggested that training programs be targeted at all levels of the workforce including hourly workers, foremen, and managers (Brown & Niemiec, 1997).

This paper builds on past studies in several key areas. First, needs assessment is necessary to determine the gap between what information and training is available to the forest products industry and what information and training should be available to the forest products industry. Second, information and training media must be considered when developing and offering information and training to Extension constituents. Finally, given Minnesota, Virginia, and Oregon's different geographical locations and differing forest products industries, how are the needs of each state different or similar?

Objectives

The research projects undertaken in Oregon, Minnesota, and Virginia were built upon two main objectives (a) identify the educational needs of the forest products industry in Minnesota, Virginia, and Oregon, and (b) evaluate the current training methods of the forest industry.

Methods

Questionnaire Design

With the objectives in mind, a mail survey was designed for distribution to forest products companies in each state. The questionnaire was in four major sections: demographics, production and marketing/management, information and training media, and outside influences. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire was examined by pre-testing the questionnaire with Extension professionals and with forest products companies within each state.

The first section involved company product type and company demographics. It contained questions pertaining to company size (number of employees) and the company's primary product line. These questions were important for categorization. Companies were divided into small and large producers. Small producers had fewer than twenty employees while large producers had twenty or more employees. Companies were also broken into primary and secondary producers. The study defined primary producers as those companies that produce veneer, lumber, ties, timbers, or panel products. Secondary producers had product lines such as furniture, windows, and doors. The questions pertaining to product type were modified between states to best reflect the industry in each state.

The second section, identical for all three states, contained questions related to production, marketing, and management. Replication was incorporated to facilitate direct comparison of results from each state. This section contained 33 subjects pertaining to production and marketing/management issues (Table 1). The importance of this section lies in a two-part design. Using two 5-point Likert scales, the respondents were asked to rate the importance of a topic as well as their knowledge of the topic (scale of 1 to 5, 1 being low and 5 being high). This two part scaling allowed for the calculation of an educational need score for each topic using the following equation: Educational Need = (Importance Rating - Knowledge Rating) x (Mean Importance)

It is important to note that the educational need rating is a perceived rating from the respondents' point of view. In other words, it is their perception of need.

The Minnesota and Virginia studies included a section on information and training media. Using a five point Likert scale, the respondents were asked to rate the type of information and training media by its importance to their training needs. Example of information and training media include short courses, newsletters, trade magazines, and Internet or on-line computers.

In addition to the media section, the Minnesota and Virginia studies included a section on outside influences that affect the forest products industry. Using a 5-point Likert scale, the respondents were asked to rate a list of outside influences as important or unimportant. Examples of outside influences included domestic economy, environmental concerns, and international competition.

Survey Procedure

After the design and pre-testing of the questionnaire in the spring of 1995, the Oregon and Virginia questionnaires were mailed. The Minnesota questionnaire followed in the spring of 1996. Questionnaires were mailed to 1,286, 630, and 903 companies in Oregon, Virginia, and Minnesota, respectively. The companies were randomly selected from each state's forest products industry directory. The surveys were managed under Dillman's Total Design Method, which consists of an initial mailing and cover letter with return postage prepaid (Salant and Dillman, 1994). The initial mailing was followed by a reminder postcard. The reminder postcard was followed by a second copy of the questionnaire and a new cover letter explaining the importance of the survey.

Results

Oregon received 441 responses out of 1286 mailed with an adjusted response rate of 34%. Virginia received 243 responses out of 630 mailed with an adjusted response rate of 42%. Minnesota received 335 responses out of 903 mailed with as adjusted response rate of 31%. The data are further broken down by producer type and company size in Table 2.

Non-response bias was checked in Oregon and Virginia through follow-up phone calls. One-way ANOVA's were used to check for differences between respondent questionnaire answers and non-respondent follow-up phone call answers to selected questions. No significant differences were found between respondents and non-respondents. Non-respondents were also called in Minnesota. In addition, early versus late respondents were compared. No significant differences were found.

As mentioned earlier, section two of the questionnaire consisted of an importance rating and a knowledge rating of production and marketing/management subjects. From these two ratings, an educational need score was generated using the following equation: Educational Need = (Importance Rating - Knowledge Rating) x (Mean Importance).

Safety regulations fell in the top five importance and knowledge ratings for all three states but did not score high under the educational need formula. This demonstrates the utility of the formula by scoring need low when knowledge is already high. Product pricing also ranked high in importance and knowledge in all three states, but it had a very high rating in importance. This resulted in a high educational need rating.

Interestingly, the top five educational need categories in Minnesota and Oregon fell into the marketing/management subject areas. Four of the top five educational need categories in Virginia fell into the marketing/management subject areas. The top five importance, knowledge, and educational need ratings (based on Minnesota's top five) are listed in Table 3. Statistical comparisons were performed using One-way ANOVA tests.

When companies are considered by size, differences emerge in their educational need ratings. Consider Table 4: while sales abilities and product pricing were rated important for small and large companies, motivating personnel was rated very high only among large companies. In addition, a significant difference was found between states in product pricing (alpha = 0.05). Much of Oregon's forest products industry at the time of the study was based in commodity products where pricing is more standardized.

Differences also emerge when companies are compared as primary and secondary producers. Table 5 shows that sales abilities, product pricing, and identifying new markets rated high for primary and secondary producers. However, significant differences do emerge between states. Product pricing was less of an issue in Oregon's commodity environment. Identifying new markets rated very high in Oregon given a trend from primary to secondary production.

Differences were also observed when specific producer categories were considered. Selected category examples including hardwood lumber manufacturers, furniture manufacturers, and pallet/container manufacturers are shown in Table 6. In the hardwood lumber manufacturer category, product promotion ranked high in Minnesota but low in Virginia and Oregon. In the furniture manufacturer category, motivating personnel ranked high in Minnesota, but low in Virginia and Oregon. Finally, in the pallet/container manufacturer category, sawing and cutting technology ranked high in Minnesota with low rankings in Virginia and Oregon.

Despite large differences between states in certain product categories, the overall study found few differences between states. Generally, the top five ranked categories in one state fell into the top ten ranked categories in the other two states.

Minnesota and Virginia also included questions about information and training media in their surveys. "Short Courses" ranked number one while "Electronic Transfer" ranked last in both states (Table 7). Despite the present push for incorporating electronic media into Extension programs.

Minnesota and Virginia also included questions about outside business influences in their surveys. Domestic Economy ranked first while International Competition ranked last in both states (Table 8).

Implications

Several important findings from the studies deserve reiteration. First, the overall findings were similar by state despite differences between the forest products industry in each state. Second, educational need was different by company size and manufacturer type. Third, the highest ranked educational need was concentrated in the marketing and management areas. Finally, short courses ranked first in respondent preference while electronic media ranked last.

This study showed that different segments of the forest products industry (small & large producers and primary & secondary manufacturers) often had different needs. Within any Extension discipline, it is important to identify the different types of customers within the service area. Segmenting by customer type is a common practice in the business environment and is essential in any Extension needs assessment program.

From these findings, the needs of the forest products industry in Minnesota, Virginia, and Oregon are described. If it is assumed that Minnesota is representative of the Lake States region, Virginia is representative of the Appalachian and Southern region, and Oregon is representative of the Pacific Northwest region of the United States, these collaborative studies describe the needs of the forest products industry as a whole. From the similar findings between states, it is possible to further generalize that needs of the forest products industry across the nation are similar.

The higher ratings of the marketing and management subject over the production subjects may indicate a shift from a production mentality to a marketing and management mentality. At least, the studies findings indicate an increased perceived importance in marketing and management activities.

To date, Virginia and Oregon have offered new short courses focusing on marketing and sales issues in the forest products industry. These short courses have been well received. In addition, Minnesota has received an additional grant to develop training manuals for the sawmill industry. This adds further support to continued efforts in short courses and training materials.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the participating companies for their cooperation. This paper was developed from a presentation given at the First National Natural Resources Extension Conference: Strengthening Extension Natural Resource Programs Through Interdisciplinary Collaboration, May 1998, Deerwood, Minnesota.

References

Borich, G.D. (1980). A needs assessment model for conducting follow-up studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 31(3), 39-42.

Bratkovich, S.M., & Miller, L.E. (1993). Perceived Educational Needs of Innovative Ohio Sawmill Operators. Forest Products Journal, 43(3), 35-40.

Brown, T.D., & Niemiec, S.S. (1997). Survey of the training needs in Oregon's lumber manufacturing industry. Forest Products Journal, 47(1), 29-32.

Riesenberg, L.E., & Gor, C.O. (1989). Farmers' preferences for methods of receiving information on new or innovative farming practices. Journal of Agricultural Extension, Fall 1989.

Salant, P.A., & Dillman, D.A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp.137-148.