Issues management process models

Issues process models have emerged as a way of integrating the many functions of issues management (Gaunt & Ollenburger, 1995). Further, Jaques (2006, p. 69) says issues management processes were put forward to “crystalli[s]e and set out the process”, allowing easy distribution of processes and optimisation of their effectiveness. Many authors have put forward models to describe the parts/stages of the ‘process’. This section presents seven issues management process models.

3.3.7.1 Chase and Jones (1977) - Issues Management Process Model

The ‘issues management’ process model was introduced in 1977. In an article, titled “Public Issue Management: The New Science”, W. Howard Chase outlined a four-step issues management process: (1) issue identification – issues are identified and grouped by type (e.g. environmental, regulatory), (2) issue analysis, (3) issue priority setting, and (4) task force issue management (Chase, 1977). In the 1977 article, Chase mentioned he was working on describing and charting the process with the help of Barrie L. Jones. In 1979, the Chase-Jones Issues Management Process Model was published in Public Relations Review - a refined and expanded version of the one published in the 1977 article. The five stages in the new model were: (1) issue identification – trends, which may become issues, are identified using a variety of methods (e.g. polls, models,

statistical analysis), (2) issue analysis – the identified trend are analysed further through methods such as media content analysis to determine their societal importance, (3) issue change strategy options – strategies are developed so that the organisation can still achieve is objectives despite the issues it faces, (4) issue action program – senior management choose an issue change strategy from those developed in the third stage and (5) evaluation – management evaluates whether the issues management process has achieved its goals and make adjustments accordingly.

3.3.7.2 Public Affairs Council (1978) – Standard Issues Management Model

In 1978, the Public Affairs Council published its own model. The ‘Standard Issues Management Model’ is comprised of six steps: (1) monitoring, (2) identifying, (3) analysing, (4) prioritising and establishing policy, (5) responding and (6) implementing (Public Affairs Council, 1978 cited in Heath, 1997). The first step - monitoring -

involves observing a company’s environment to identify trends that may become issues. The second step – identifying - focuses on identifying the issues with the greatest importance to the organisation and, consequently, those that will require the most resources. The third step – analysing – assesses the issue’s impact operationally and financially on the organisation. The fourth step – prioritising and establishing policy – involves senior management creating organisational policy to deal with the issue. The fifth step – responding – is creation of organisation’s response to the issue. This

response is created from “a range of issue-change strategy options” (Heath, 1997, p. 8). The sixth step – implementing – sees the organisation implement the response decided upon in step five.

Heath says the Public Affairs Council model has become the “standard issues management model” (Heath, 1997, p. 8). The model shares similarities to Chase and Jones. However, there are two key differences. First, the addition of the first step - monitoring. This suggests that efforts to monitor issues are ongoing, whereas Chase and Jones do not indicate how often their process should be initiated. Second, the model does not include an evaluation stage. This could perhaps be because evaluation is regarded as a standard feature of public relations process and, as such, was omitted. What the standard model does is provide clear steps that clarify the issue management process. Subsequent issues management process models have usually repeated the steps in the standard model, while making only minor additions or changes. These models are described briefly in the following sections.

3.3.7.3 Renfro (1987) – Issues Management Process “Four Essential Stages”

Renfro (1987) posed an issues management process model with “four essential stages”: (1) identifying potential issues by scanning the organisation’s operating environment, (2) researching the issues – their background, future and potential impacts, (3)

evaluating the various issues that are ‘competing’ for organisational resources, (4) developing strategies to deal with the issues. This model, and many of those that have come after the ‘standard’ model, vary in the number of stages, but are essentially the same or very similar steps.

3.3.7.4 Tucker and Broom (1993) – 5 Stage Model

In describing the issues management process, Tucker and Broom (1993) proposed a 5- stage model: (1) anticipating, researching and prioritising issues, (2) assessing the impact of issues on the organisation, (3) recommending policies and strategies to minimise risk and seize opportunities, (4) participating and implementing strategy and (5) evaluating program impact. This model offers no further description of its

implementation and is very similar to the Public Affairs Council’s ‘Standard’ model.

3.3.7.5 Tucker and Trumpfheller (1993) - Issues Management Five-Step

Plan

Tucker and Trumpfheller (1993) proposed a five-step plan as a guideline for those wanting to establish an issues management programme: (1) anticipate issues and establish priorities, (2) analyse issues, (3) establish an organisational position on the issue, (4) identify publics/opinion leaders who can help advance your position and (5) identify desired behaviours of publics/opinion leaders. The way this model differs from the other models already discussed is in the last two stages. However, this identification of publics/opinion leaders and of desired behaviours would perhaps fit under issue analysis and the development of policy.

3.3.7.6 Ewing (1997) - Seven Step Issues Management Process

Ewing’s (1997) issues management process has seven steps. First, issue identification – Ewing says this is done through scanning of the “sociopolitical environment, seeking emerging issues” (p. 181). Second, issue analysis – the issue’s relevance to the

corporation is defined and its long-term impact established. Ewing says that this second stage usually takes the form of written reports. Third, the development of corporate policy on the issue. Ewing says this policy is aligned with the organisation’s plans and goals and usually requires senior management approval. Fourth, the development of specific action plans (tactics) – a time frame for dealing with the issue is set along with the budget, and the people charged with managing the issue are decided upon. Fifth, the action plans decided upon in the fourth step are implemented along with communication of the company’s position on the issue. Sixth, evaluating, adjusting and repeating – the issues management program is evaluated and changes made. During this step the company’s position and supporting arguments for that position are repeated. Seventh, keeping management and staff focused until the issue is no longer current. The seventh stage is unique to this model, although it can also be seen as helpful advice that might fit under the implementation and evaluation stages.

3.3.7.7 Jaques (2000) - Don’t Just Stand There Model

Jaques is both an issues manager for Australia’s Dow Chemical Company and an academic. In the past decade he has written a number of articles with the aim of

strengthening issues management practise (see Jaques, 2002; 2004a, 2004b, 2005, 2006, 2007). In his book “Don’t Just Stand There: The Do-it Plan for Effective Issues

Management” (2000), Jaques proposed a four-step model of issues management. Jacques says he designed the model to simplify the issues management process to make it easy to implement. The model is based on the acronym ‘DO-IT’ standing for:

definition, objective setting, intended outcomes and tactics. In the first stage - definition - an issue is identified. Jaques defines issues as “any development – usually in the public arena – which, if it continues, could have a significant impact on the operation or future interests of the organisation” (p. 19). Issue identification is followed by an

organisation decides on one overarching objective for the issue. This objective may be aligned to the organisation’s corporate strategy. Further, Jaques emphasises that this objective must be achievable. In the third stage – intended outcomes – the objective is divided into outcomes, which, when achieved will obtain the objective. In the fourth stage – tactics – the organisation decides on the actions that must be taken to achieve each intended outcome as well as the people who will take these actions.

The above seven models can be summarised into the following five stages: 1. identifying and/or monitoring for issues, (2) evaluating/analysing the issue, (3)

developing an organisational response - choosing tactics, setting objectives, issue policy development (4) implementing the response and (5) evaluating. This observation is confirmed by Wartick and Rude (1986) who summed up issues management processes models as emphasising three phases (1) identification – the organisation finds or predicts the emergence of an issue, (2) evaluation – interpreting the issue to understand its origins and how it impacts on the organisation and (3) response development – formulating and implementing a course of action to deal with the issue. These three phases have since been endorsed by other writers (Pursey P M A R Heugens, 2006; Logsdon & Palmer, 1988). The two further phases found by this study’s comparison of the models emphasise the implementation of the issue response and the evaluation of this response. This five step summary model is applied to the management of the lahar in Chapter 7.