A Proposal for Establishing an Issues Management Process at CDC

DRAFT – FOR INTERNAL CDC DISCUSSION ONLY by: Salvatore
J Lucido, Sept/Oct 2005
UA Proposal for Establishing an Issues Management Process at CDC
Sal Lucido
October 2005
Defining Issues Management
Issues management is the process of prioritizing and proactively addressing public
policy and reputation issues that can affect an organization's success. Many large
companies, in particular, use issues management techniques to keep all of their
external relations activities focused on high-priority challenges and opportunities1
It involves the use of intelligence gathering, priority setting, and strategic planning in a
manner that permits the organization to proactively manage issues in order to minimize
the negative impacts on the organization, maximize the potential opportunities and
avoid the need for crisis management.
Issues are defined as situations in which there is a gap between stakeholder2
expectations and an organization’s policies performance, or commitments. These gaps
or issues are categorized into two types: threats and opportunities. Threats represent
issues that are likely to negatively impact the organization’s reputation, mission, or
relationship with key stakeholders. Alternatively, opportunities offer an organization an
opportunity to enhance its reputation by leading or innovating in a specific issue area.
In the absence of an issues management strategy, the best results are either a missed
opportunities or crisis.
UThe Nature of Threats
There are generally five threats that an issues management protocol is designed to
address: active threats; passive threats; media threats; the BIG threat, or a bottom line
threat. These threats represent issues that could potential redirect agency resources
away from priority programming areas and hinder the agencies ability to achieve its
mission. The first type of threat – active threats – is represented by professional
activists who have established an activist industry. This industry takes on issues that
are often viewed as grassroots topics and makes effective use of the media to garner
the issue significant media attention. The techniques utilized by these activists are not
always “fact-based” but typically do pose a significant risk to the institution’s reputation.
Further, while “grassroots organizations” were traditionally viewed as “disorganized,
underfunded, struggling folk willing to live hand-to-mouth in the name of their noble
1
TPPT See, Issues Management section of the Public Affairs Council website,
HTUhttp://www.pac.org/public/issues_management.shtmlUTH
2
TPPT Stakeholders are individuals, groups, or organizations that have an interest in the outcome of an issue affecting
your organization. They typically have the ability to influence the course of the debate and to influence the
positioning of others.
Developed by: Salvatore J Lucido, Sept/Oct 20051

goals”3
the opposite is now true. In recent years, activists have begun to organize
themselves in very sophisticated ways increasing their access to funds and increasing
their ability to battle industry and organizations with their claims. The grassroots groups
of yesterday have given way to a well organized, well funded activist model that more
often than not resembles the corporate structures they often battle against on a daily
basis.
The “passive threat” represents the ability of individuals and pseudo-news outlets to use
the connectivity of our society to spread misinformation about issues that could have a
serious affect on an institution. This connectivity, typically personified by internet sites
and blogs, can serve to spread falsities with an amazing amount of speed. Sir Winston
Churchill has been quoted to say, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth
has a chance to get its pants on.”4
While that may have been the case in the 1930s and
1940s, today a lie can likely make it around the world several times before the truth can
even has a chance to get its pants out of the dresser. All organizations struggle to
anticipate and respond to the rumors and misnomers that are propagated by the
internet and other advanced methods of communication that has made our world so
small in the modern era.
The third threat is posed to organizations by the media. Today’s modern media often
lives by the mantra that “if it bleeds it leads.” This sensationalized approach to selling
the news favors stories rife with pain and disagreement. The competition to put these
stories out often result in a sensationalized focus on attributing accountability in a
manner that, at times will sacrifice accuracy for speed. The end result of these speedy
approach to reporting is that the audience always hears what is reported, whether it is
accurate or not but it rarely hears (or reads) the retraction or correction assuming there
is one offered by the media outlet.
The BIG threat is Congressional action. While private institutions often strive to avoid
Congressional action, as a public agency, CDC should seek to engage Congress in a
collaborative manner that supports our mission driven activities. An active issues
management system would facilitate CDC’s ability to manage issues that may engender
increased public support for government action and allow the agency to work with
Congress in a positive way to address the public’s concern without a significant impact
on resources and current priority activities.
The final threat is known as the Bottom Line threat. In the private sector, this threat
takes the form of “share shock” – a sudden and sharp decline in stock price relative to
S&P as markets become increasingly sensitive to bad news, alleged acts of impropriety
or corporate malfeasance. According to the Treasury Leadership Council, companies
affected by share shock, on average, take five years to recover and almost one-third
never achieve full recovery. For public institutions “share shock” can take the form of
3
TPPT Opinion Journal from the The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, HTUwww.wsj.comUTH,
HTUhttp://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrassel/?id=95001590UTH, Strassel, Kimberly, A., December, 13, 2001
4
TPPT Quoted from a presentation titled, “Understanding Issues Management,” presented by Richard Ades, Senior Vice
President, Powell Tate‌│Weber Shandwick, September 13, 2005

reduced appropriations and/or reduced reputation both of which are critical for a public
institution to accomplish its mission.
The Need for Issues Management
An issues management strategy is designed to protect and enhance the ability of an
organization to do its work and meet its corporate mission and associated goals and
objectives. As institutions face increasing public scrutiny and the sophistication of
activities continues to grow, all institutions – public, non-profit, and private – will need to
implement measures designed to protect themselves and their mission. This is
especially important as the world continues to shrink and our ability to communicate
continues to expand in speed and sophistication. Institutions no longer have the luxury
of sweeping an issue under the rug or waiting for the activists to burn themselves out. A
declining public trust in institutions generally and the need to protect corporate
reputations are two key factors for addressing issues head on. Finally, it is important to
note the positive aspects of such a system. In a society that creates highly competitive
public and private systems, the need to lead and differentiate an organization from the
pack through innovative and forward thinking is critical to the short and long term
success of any organization. An effective issues management regimen can provide an
organization with the proactive systems necessary to capture and take advantage of
issues early on in the process.
Issues Management in Practice
There are a number of characteristics that are common to any issues management
system. First, all issues management systems are designed to be a proactive process
that close the gaps between the expectations of the institution’s stakeholders and the
actions of that institution. Simply put, effective issues management is customer focused
– pure and simple. Second, an effective issues management strategy fosters an
outside-in cultural and communications mindset. It is no longer acceptable to have the
mindset that what is good for my institution is good for society. There needs to be
recognition that all institutions are affected by a host of external factors that need to be
managed in order for the organization to survive and thrive today. Third, an effective
issues management system focuses on effective management networks rather than
hierarchy. The management of any issue threatening to impact the organization must
be done by those with the ability to address the issue not necessarily those with the
titles in the organizations. Further, the approach to issues management must and
should account for the complexities that issues can present to any organization.
Therefore, all issues management teams should be positioned to address the issue on
a variety of levels including: media relations, intergovernmental relations, community
relations, futurism, appropriations planning, research and analysis, product and program
development, and regulatory and legal issues. Finally, and most importantly, an issue
management strategy must represent a commitment to a two-way standard of
institutional responsibility toward stakeholders. Stakeholders need to feel like the
issues management strategy employed seeks to honestly address the gaps between

actual performance and their expectation and that that the process is as inclusive as
possible.
Alternatively, it is important to note what an issues management strategy is not
designed to address. First, issues management is not an effort to dictate policy – it is a
collaborative method that is designed to support the adoption of policies, procedures,
and programs consistent with the expectations of an institution’s stakeholders and
corporate mission. Second, this process is not designed to address an issue that has
reached the level of crisis. In fact, the contrary is true. An effective issues management
strategy will allow an institution to effectively avert most crisis situations. Third, issue
management is not a reactive, defensive system designed to facilitate spin and damage
control. If implemented correctly, an issues management process is a forward thinking,
proactive, systematic approach to identifying and rating potential issues confronting an
institution and managing that issue to the benefit of the institution. An effective issues
management system will guide the organization to act at a time when it can maximize
its ability to influence the outcome by taking action before the issue grows into a crisis.
All issues management systems have certain key characteristics necessary to ensure
the ultimate success of the system. First, for any issue management system to be truly
successful, an institution must have true leadership from senior management. A senior
leader must be engaged early to communicate how the process will operate. It would
be ideal if this communication occurred on a consistent basis in order to establish the
process as a priority by the senior leadership. Second, there should be an issues
manager appointed to lead the overall effort on behalf of the organization. This
individual should be leading the issues management effort on a daily basis. Third, as
issues are identified by the organization, a lead analyst or issues manager should be
appointed to monitor the issue and, when necessary, lead a cross functional team
charged with managing he issue. During the initial stages of the issues management
process, the analyst should be engaged in aggressive monitoring activities utilizing all
the information outlets available including: media, government, stakeholders, technical,
and private industry. This basic research/monitoring informs the ongoing reassessment
process that the issues manager should be engaged in on a regular basis. This
process should include:
(A) Daily monitoring and logging of issue criteria into a tracking system allowing
for weekly issues updates that include revisions to the issues threat assessment
score;
(B) Monthly updates regarding he development and issuance of materials
including issue briefs, white papers, facts sheets, and Qs and As;
(C) Annual issues roundtable meetings to review issue movement and reassess
issues threat levels;
(D) Annual benchmarking updates to reassess threat levels and reexamine the
issues tracking system based on stakeholder assessments

Once an issues team has been engaged, it is critical that the goals and expectations of
this team be clearly established and communicated to the team members. A defined
outcome, that is clearly and simply stated, is critical to the success of an issues
management team because it insures that the ultimate outcome desired is a reflection
of the institution’s vision and values. Finally, once implemented, an issues
management team should be empowered to utilize a wide-range of tools necessary for
effective issues management including:
o Community relations
o Intergovernmental relations
o Thought leadership and executive visibility
o Research and development
o Advertising
o Public relations
o Consumer relations
o Media relations
o Product, programs, and service quality
Ultimately, the keys to any successful issues management system is:
ORGANIZATION; ANTICIPATION, & INFORMATION.
UA Proposed Issues Management Model for CDC
The Basic Issues Management Model
Each organization that commits to an issues management strategy will generally
develop a system that works for their corporate culture and environment. While the
logistics of an issues management strategy are likely to be unique to that organization,
there are shared activities that form a basic issues management model that all
approaches will likely have including:
1. Issue identification: through formal and informal methods, the issues
management staff will identify and monitor issues that pose a potential threat or
opportunity to the organization.
2. Issue analysis: the issues management team will attempt to define the issue in a
manner that is relevant to the organization. A threat assessment on each issue is
conducted to determine the true, current risks posed by the issue. These
analyses are designed to consider how different resolutions to the issue would
affect the future of the organization. This process should be used to isolate the
issues with the high threat levels for further work.
3. Position on the issue: Establish an organizational policy on the issue in
accordance with the current strategic plans and goals.

4. Action planning: develop a specific action plan to carry out a strategy inherent in
the approved corporate policy position. This plan should include projected time
frames for organizational intervention in the issue resolution process, an
identification of organizational assets that are needed to implement the plan, and
budgetary parameters for the effort.
5. Implement: Implement the action plan and begin communicating the
organization’s position on the issue.
6. Monitor and assess: The issues management team should be positioned to
effectively monitor the issue, how players react to the organization’s position, and
react to objections, opportunities to negotiate, and repeat the organization’s
position and supporting arguments
7. Focus on the end game: once the process has been initiated, the organization
should maintain focus on the issue until a resolution is achieved in a manner
acceptable to organization and consistent with its mission, goals, and objectives.
Current Status of Issues Management at CDC
When examining the various public affairs activities at CDC, it becomes apparent that
there is not a coordinated issues management process that is consistently managed by
the key organizational units at CDC. In order to establish such a coordinated strategic
approach, CDC would need to develop an issues management framework that would
facilitate team work between and amongst - CDC’s communications and media relations
staff, CDC’s planning and evaluation (POLICY) staffs, CDC’s Congressional relations
staff, and the CC’s Enterprise Communications Officers.
The bulk of our communications activities at CDC are either focused on health
marketing – which seeks to utilize the science of marketing to enhance CDC’s ability to
use science in a manner that can have a positive health impact on all Americans –
media relations – which focuses on managing the media once they have identified an
issue of interest and –educational activities – which focuses on informing decision
makers about our programs and the opportunities presented by these programs. CDC
has traditionally dedication little if any resources to a proactive, coordinated intelligence
gathering effort that would support a strategic approach to managing issues that pose a
threat or opportunity to the Agency. In order for this Agency to establish a more
proactive, coordinated approach to issues management, the organizational units
identified above will need to function in a team oriented manner.
Further, Policy staffs at the CIO and Division level are often charged with the
management of a variety of issues affecting the issues management process including:
budget formulation, legislative tracking and analysis, Congressional testimony and
briefings, partnership development and maintenance, political scanning, and program
evaluation activities. POLICY staffs are also tapped to support their respective
organizations with special project duties in addition to the activities listed above. The

diversity or responsibilities coupled with limited staffing places most POLICY offices in a
reactive mode a majority of the time – inhibiting their ability to engage in the issues
analysis necessary to support a fully operational issues management activity at their
level. Further, as issues management is traditionally viewed as a communications
stratagem, POLICY offices may not know of this model or view it as a function to be
assumed by POLICY offices.
Finally, each coordinating center has been assigned an Enterprise Communications
Officer. This individual, in theory, is supposed to have both communications and
POLICY experience that will allow that individual to bridge the gap between the two
disciplines. These positions face two challenges as it relates to issues management:
first, while each ECO has a position description, the reality of the role they will be
playing in their individual CC’s is currently in a state of evolution as roles within the CC
and between the CC and CIOs are clarified. The second issue is that ECOs do not
have staff to support the activities they engage in – which inherently limits their ability to
engage in certain activities including how the ECOs and POLICY offices will interact on
a daily basis.
The Basic Building Blocks
While current system has been structured in a manner that promotes a reactionary
approach to issues and currently lacks some of the basic research, analytical, and
logistical components are in place throughout the Agency to foster the development and
implementation of an effective issues management system at CDC.
Office of the Director Assets
The first and most critical issues management asset available to the Agency is the
Office of Enterprise Communications. For the first time in CDC history, there exists an
OD staff office that unifies professionals trained to handle media relations, risk
communications, internal communications, and issues management. This
management construct is further enhanced by the placement of ECOs in each
coordinating center, providing OEC with a direct information sharing conduit between
the CCs and CDC/OD. This unification of public affairs expertise provides for a natural
foundation upon which and issues management system can be developed and
implemented in the future. In addition, while the Team for Issues Management (TIMA)
has not been charged with the development of an issues management system for the
Agency, the team has engaged in some modest issues management type activities that
were either assigned to the team or developed by the team as a reaction to their
customers needs. These processes and products include: management of the
Emerging Issues Briefings, providing deliverable support to senior leadership officials,
development and dissemination of the weekly Emerging Issues report, and
responsibility for the development and dissemination of issue alerts and issue briefs
from CDC to HHS.
Coordinating Center Assets

As discussed above, the most obvious asset available for this system at this level would
be the ECOs. Depending on how the system is developed, ECOs could serve as the
gatekeepers for the initial stage of an issues management process. In conjunction with
POLICY staffs at the CIO and Division levels, ECOs could manage the initial phase of
the management process by identifying, categorizing, and monitoring issues as they
become apparent to the CIO and Division level staff. The status and relevance of
issues being monitored can be updated regularly through the existing ECO/POLICY
meetings and ECO/OEC meetings.
CIO Assets
The assets at the CIO, as discussed above, take the form of POLICY and media
relations staffs at the CIO/OD and Division levels. These professionals are already
positioned to obtain the information necessary to feed an issues management system
on a daily basis given their role in program development, legislation authorities and
budget development. These individuals typically have access to key CDC partners,
especially at the state and local levels and it is these staff that would truly serve as the
front line, first responders in an issues management system at CDC. While these staffs
are not designed to address issues management currently, it would likely take limited
adjustments to facilitate that additional job duty.
An Issues Management Model for CDC
Key Components
An effective issues management system needs to be maximize the sources from which
it receives information in order to appropriately implement an effective issues
management system.
First, the issues management system must accommodate annual inputs from key CDC
stakeholders. These inputs can be achieved in a variety of ways. For example, the
CDC Advisory Committee should be surveyed concerning two key issues: first their
perspective on CDC’s performance over the past year versus their expectations of CDC
during the same timeframe and, second, their perspective on the issues that CDC will
be facing in the coming year.
Second, CDC should build into each of its national conference listening sessions or
roundtable discussions that permit key CDC stakeholders and partners the opportunity
to convey the same information sought from the Advisory Committee. While these
meetings do not happen at the same time, the information garnered can be used to
inform the ongoing process of reassessment regarding the threat levels posed by each
issues facing CDC.
Third, there needs to be a management process in place that permits the issues
management system to function on a daily basis. This system should facilitate the flow

of information up to the CDC/OD and down to the branch level if necessary. All
employees should feel empowered to tap into this system of provide CDC issue
managers with notification of both threats and opportunities and the system should be
flexible enough to handle these inputs and incorporate the new information into the
existing system
Fourth, there needs to be a crosscutting issues management action team at CDC
charged with monitoring the activities of the system, contributing information to the
system, and lending the credibility of senior leadership’s support for the system. The
committee should convene on a regular basis to review the status of the issues being
monitored and managed by the issues management team.
Finally, there needs to be a commitment by CDC to convene crosscutting issues
management teams for those issues that warrant immediate attention and action.
There has been some discussion of converting the Director’s Emergency Operations
Center in Building 1 into an Emerging Operations Center capable of managing issues
that are not at the emergency or crisis stage. This approach would provide functional
support to the issues management system when action was necessary. In addition,
CDC management must commit to the support of these teams with resources-wise,
financially, and politically. Once convened, issues management teams will be charged
with reviewing the issue confronting the agency, developing a strategy for addressing
the issue, and implementing that strategy. In order for this to be effective, issue
management teams must have the resources necessary to pursue a plan of action.
Functional Operations (see diagram 1 for a pictorial reference)
1. Strategic Intelligence System
The primary source of information used to prime the Issues Management system
at CDC will be known as the strategic intelligence system. This intelligence
system will be managed in a way that permits a flow of information – planned and
unplanned - into the system on a daily basis. The system will combine a daily
issues monitoring activity with periodic, planned issue vulnerability audits
throughout the year.
The issues monitoring function will be based in the areas of CDC primarily
responsible for program development, implementation, and monitoring – the
Division and CIOs. These organizational units would be required to have in
place an individual dedicated to environmental scanning activities. These efforts
would require the individual to work with internal and external partners in order to
gauge possible issues that pose a risk or opportunity for the agency. Examples
include: (1) periodic meetings with budget, legislative, and GAO/OIG staff to
review current trends in Congressional and interdepartmental policy interests.;
(2) periodic meetings with program consultant staff to identify state issues that
may present themselves at a national level; and (3) periodic meetings with

partnership liaisons and/or external partners to gauge their perspective on the
hot issues facing CDC.
The second component of this strategic intelligence system would be a
vulnerability audit/survey conducted among our primary advisory committees and
partners. The audit/survey, developed with rigorous scientific methods would be
administered to each of CDC’s existing advisory committees and during any
scheduled national meetings sponsored by CDC’s CCs or CIOs. The survey
would be designed to provide CDC with an outside-in perspective on the issues
that may be facing the agency in the near future.
2. Initial Threat Assessment Analysis
These sources of information are then fed into a risk assessment process
managed jointly by ECOs and TIMA. At this stage in the process, the issues will
be reviewed and an initial threat assessment will be developed through an issue
brief. The issue brief will be a concise document (no more than 2-single-spaced,
pages) containing the following information:
a. a statement of the focus of the issues
b. background discussion
c. description of trends, driving forces, and stakeholders influencing the
process
d. a forecast describing future prospects
e. potential implications for the organization
f. and a recommended assessment level for the issue
The metrics for the actual threat assessment can vary from institution to institution. One
formula, used in a successful issues management program at Washington Mutual,
evaluates the following:
(UProbability Threat Will Occur + Potential Impact on OrganizationU) + Prominence of
Issue = Threat
( Amount of Organizational Control over Issue )
Rating
The factors are weighted according to the following scales:
A. Probability Threat Will Occur (0-20% = 1; 20 – 40% = 2; 40 – 60% = 3; 60 –
80% =4; over 80% = 5)
When conducting this analysis, factors to consider include:
1. the scientific credibility and reliability of the source raising the issue;
2. the scientific reliability of the issues being raised;

3. the relative influence the source(s) have in the following communities:
scientific, media, white house, judiciary, legislative, advocacy, general
public
4. public perception on the issue/evolving public perception on issue
5. number of existing “honest” brokers involved in the issue
6. relationship between issue and existing public programs
7. relationship between issue and current trends in public opinion
B. Potential Impact on Organization (Minimal Impact = 1; Light Impact = 2;
Moderate Impact = 3; Significant Impact = 4; Catastrophic Impact = 5)
1. potential impact (+/-) on the organizational reputation of CDC
2. potential impact (+/-)on the organizational reputation of other OPDIVs
3. issue presents CDC with an opportunity to assume leadership role
4. potential impact of agency appropriations
5. potential impact on agency authorizations
6. threat of political action (WH interest; OIG/GAO project, Congressional
hearings, legal action)
7. NY Times rule – How will CDC look if media begins covering issue?
8. potential threat to key partners
9. relationship between issue and strategic agency goals
C. Amount of Organizational Control (Limited Control = 1; Moderate control = 2;
Maximum control = 3)
1. strength of the science base on the issue
2. relative strength of the CDC program potentially impacted by issue
3. strength of existing CDC coalitions and partnerships on the issue
4. strength of CDC policy position on the issue
5. consistency of the CDC policy position with DHHS (OS and OPDIVs),
other related agencies, and partners
6. relationship between issue and political goals of DHHS appointees and
administration officials
7. public perception of CDC’s role in issue
8. relationship between issue and CDC mission
D. Prominence of the Issue (Active media coverage = 1. No media coverage =
0)
1. If there is media coverage of any type – local, state, or national – add one
to the formula. If the media has not engaged on the issue, add zero to the
formula

While this formula may appear to be subjective, the values attributed to each part of the
treat assessment formula should be assigned based on solid research that is reflected
in the issue brief. Analysts presenting the brief should be able to justify each part of the
equation using research and facts.
3. Agency Prioritization Process
These issue briefs and threat assessments will then be fed into an agency
prioritization process managed by the CDC Issues Management Action Team.
The Action Team, meeting on a monthly basis will be charged with the
responsibility of reviewing and prioritizing identified agency issues into three
categories (Level 1, Monitor Mode; Level 2, Management Mode; Level 3,
Stratagem Mode) based on the threat assessment score assigned to the issue.
Issues with a threat assessment of 0 – 3 will be categorized as Monitor Mode;
issues with a threat assessment of 4 – 6 will be categorized as Management
Mode; issues with a threat assessment of 7 – 9 will be categorized as Stratagem
Mode. Any issue scoring a 10 or better will be considered a crisis issue and
managed outside the confines of this system.
While the Action Team will have the recommendations made within the
ECO/TIMA initial assessment, the final decision will be theirs to make concerning
the status of the issue. In instances where issues appear on the radar screen
quickly and appear to represent a significant threat or opportunity, the steering
committee may be called into session to conduct an emergency review.
The level of activity and monitoring assignment will be determined by the threat
assessment level assigned to an issue. Those issues designated as Level 1,
Monitor Mode will be assigned to an appropriate CIO monitor and tracked
utilizing the Emerging Issues report. Changes in the issues status would need to
be raised by the CIO monitor to the CC ECO through the development of a
revised threat assessment. This revised assessment would be submitted to the
Action Team for further consideration.
Those issues designated as Level 2, Management Mode will be assigned to the
appropriate TIMA analyst who will monitor the issue and track it through the use
of the Emerging Issues report. In this instance, the TIMA analyst would also be
charged with the development of an interim policy designed to facilitate the
management process should the issue’s threat assessment be elevated to Level
3, Stratagem Mode. This policy document would be developed by TIMA in
conjunction with agency experts, disseminated to CDC Senior Staff via the
Emerging Issues Briefing format, and ultimately submitted to CDC Director and
ELB for consideration and adoption. Finally, the TIMA analyst would continue to
monitor the issue and, when necessary, develop a revised threat assessment in
conjunction with the ECO. This assessment would be then be submitted to the
Action Team for further consideration and reassessment.

Those issues designated as Level 3, Stratagem Mode would require the
activation of the Emerging Operations Center. An issue action team, including a
team leader, would be assigned to meet and begin addressing the issue. This
team would be responsible for:
a. conducting a situational assessment;
b. conducting an impact analysis;
c. assessing stakeholder positions on the issue relative to CDC
d. define CDC’s position on the issue
e. develop and release issue alerts/advisories to DHHS when necessary
f. assess stakeholder objectives
g. establish technical and operating objectives for CDC
h. develop and propose an action plan designed to address the issue
i. present the action plan to CDC leadership via the Emerging Issues
briefing mechanism and the ELB process for approval
j. implement the action plan and monitor the issues status through the
emerging issues report
k. evaluate the impact of the plan once implementation is complete
l. develop and present an after action report which reviews the process,
presents evaluation data on the relative success of the plan and proposes
recommendations for future efforts
In essence, this issue action team would be responsible for managing a pending issue
in such a manner that limits CDC’s exposure and maximizes CDC’s opportunities
through the critical stages of an issue’s lifespan. This process would clearly need the
input of subject matter experts and at some point, the management of this issue or the
residual affects of the management process, would need to be transitioned to the
appropriate programmatic activity at CDC.
Conclusion
“Cheshire Puss” Alice began, “would you please tell me which way I ought to go
from here?”
“That depends on where you want to get to, “said the cat.
“I don’t much care where, “said Alice.
“The it doesn’t matter which way you go,” said the cat
- Lewis Carroll, ‘Alice in Wonderland’
“For knowing afar off the evils that are brewing, they are easily cured. But when
they are allowed to grow until everyone can recognize them, there is no longer
any remedy to be found.
- Nicolo Machiavelli
“If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there”
- Ancient Chinese Proverb

As we work to create an innovative, customer-oriented organization at CDC, we must
be mindful that strategic planning is not limited to big picture, long term activities. In
fact, a strong argument can be made that how an organization manages its short term
issues determines its effectiveness on long term goals and objectives.
One of the primary weaknesses of the planning and evaluation components at CDC has
been an inability to shift from a reactive, crisis management mode to a proactive, issues
management activity. As discussed above, the inability to make that transition was not
a reflection on the agency-wide capacity but rather a failure to recognize the need for
such a system at all levels of management. Indeed the key components of an effective
issues management system are already in place and ready to be utilized in a proactive
manner. The existing resources have the necessary linkages to both internal and
external sources of information that are necessary to feed the information management
system described above. These existing systems merely need some reorientation to
accomplish a much needed and much neglected public affairs function at CDC –
planning for which road we will be traveling in the short term.
The techniques described in the paper are utilized by Fortune 500 companies on a daily
basis. In order to see the successes and failures of this approach, one need only look
at a daily newspaper. The items making the headlines reflect an ineffective
management of key issues. The goal here is to become the non-story, absent from the
headlines because the agency was able to effectively manage its issues before the
press could develop an interest it them.
While there are aspects of issues management that can be considered an “art”, in truth,
issues management is ideally suited for a scientific agency like CDC. An effective
system takes a planned and analytic approach to addressing problems before they
become problems. This strategy is the antithesis of crisis management. The ultimate
goal is identify and fix the problems in order to avoid a crisis. In many ways, this
agency lurches from crisis to crisis with no planning whatsoever – a common situation
for many organizations. Implementing a sound issues management system should
present the agency with opportunities to avoid as many crises as possible and take
advantage of opportunities in a proactive manner. A truly innovative organization knows
where it is going all the time – short term and long term. Issues management is the
process by which this agency can develop that short term road map and ensure its long
term success.

A Proposal for Establishing an Issues Management Process at CDC

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (12)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to A Proposal for Establishing an Issues Management Process at CDC

Similar to A Proposal for Establishing an Issues Management Process at CDC (20)

More from Sal Lucido

More from Sal Lucido (9)

A Proposal for Establishing an Issues Management Process at CDC