Effective Inter-agency Training Doctrine for Agricultural Entities

ABSTRACT

Effective Interagency Training Doctrine for Agricultural Entities

by

Jeremy Benefield

The purpose of this paper is to create a reliable training doctrine focused on the formation of a temporary agency for agricultural training. This paper takes a wholesale and foundational approach to agricultural training by looking at typical interagency doctrine. These doctrines are typically created by the Department of Defense for military and national strategy training purposes. This paper seeks to repurpose the tremendous research already done by the Department of Defense. In the course of the creation of this paper it was found that a majority of the doctrine created by the Department of Defense for military training purposes could easily be translated to agricultural training. This is due to the government functioning similarly in most agencies, regardless of the agency’s intended purpose. This has led to the conclusion that the government is already able to create the proposed interagency training agencies, but simply has not leveraged its existing ability for training, to be used for agriculture.

1.1 Introduction

Queen Elizabeth II once said, “It’s all to do with the training: you can do a lot if you are properly trained.” Training is one of the centerpieces of modern public service, and also one of the parts of organizations which often struggles the most. Training, even in the context of a single organizational unit, is already complex, so one can imagine the immense complexity of an interagency training doctrine. The already abundant troubles of training, such as levels of knowledge, hierarchy of trainers, expectations of training, and definitions, are massively multiplied in a multi-agency collaborative environment. In Interagency Collaboration: Driving and Restraining Forces (Johnson, McLaughhlin, Christensen, 1982) interagency collaboration is defined as a process by which two or more agencies integrate their resources to meet the needs of a stakeholder.

Beyond those struggles, the specific field of agriculture has many specialized needs of its own. The abundant number of agencies and organizations, all with their own nomenclature and lexicon greatly complicates the working space. That is not to even mention any attempts at interagency training, which typically falls flat due to massive differences in basic definitions. This, combined with different needs of a large and diverse prerogative leads to a serious lack of interagency agricultural training. The fact of that matter is that the U.S. Government has a tremendous number of agencies, all of which have their own purpose and culture (Crews, 2017).

Agriculture is a difficult theater of policy, as is obvious from the thousands of years of literature and research which is still being worked on to this day in order to improve agriculture practices. There is more literature, ideas, policies, and history in agriculture than nearly any other field. This means that training in this field is a truly gargantuan undertaking, one which has caused many issues over the very many years that agriculture training has existed. Attempts to improve agriculture are always ongoing and will likely continue for as long as humans grow any crop or raise any livestock.

This need for training has become self-evident and that is one reason that corporate spending on training programs increased by $10 billion dollars starting from $92 billion in 2021 to $102 billion in 2022 (Statista, 2022). Corporations, ever on the pulse of innovation, realized early-on the importance of having a trained workforce, a workforce that understands their mission and how to deliver on that mission. This understanding has transcended the private realm and made its way to the government, where a new focus on intra-agency training has given birth to better workforce staffing opportunities and has revealed the importance of training.       

While the origin of job training itself has been lost to history, an immense transformation in the field of training – from apprenticeships to formal educational training – is evident to have occurred during the second World War (Torraco, 2016). World War II had a great effect on training in many ways. One big change was a new demand for those with technological knowledge. As technology transitioned from analog controllers to computers and other precision technologies a new need arose for those with scientific and technical training. This was something that was too slow to acquire from apprenticeships and led to an increase in institutionalized education and training.

Two other legacies from the Second World War – which led to an increase in training – were the Training Within Industry (TWI) program, and the G.I. Bill. TWI was a program created to fast track the merger of the private industry and the defense sector for the purpose of quickly churning out armaments for the war effort. In order to do this, an abundance of training was required, and TWI was the program that facilitated this training. Even after the war ended TWI formed a legacy which continues to this day with on-the-job training. The G.I. Bill allowed for greater training and education possibilities for returning veterans. This led to many attending higher educational institutions and training institutions. In 1970 just 7.4 million people per year attended higher learning institutions in the United States, whereas by 2010 an astounding 21 million per year were attending (Hanson, 2023). As obtaining higher education has become the expectation, a much larger portion of the population has acquired technical skills in many diverse fields.

This paradigm shift in the way job skills are earned has drastically altered the very world we live in. This change has not gone unnoticed, and advances in governance, such as New Public Management (NPM) and New Public Service (NPS), have further pushed administrators to look at new, equitable, approaches to training in the government workforce (Chen, Chen, and Hsieh, 2019). However, even with these advances in understanding the need for training, how the training should be instituted is still hotly debated and not fully understood.

As made clear in George Katsos’s The Future of Interagency Doctrine (Katsos, 2020), going from a basic training and interoperability platform to a codified doctrine is the future of interagency relationships. While the Department of Defense (DOD) has spearheaded the need for joint agency doctrine, the idea of this doctrine has become accepted in most agencies and organizations. The idea is that, as agencies and organizations advance, they should stop asking if doctrine is important and needed, but instead should try to participate in doctrine formation more, in order to facilitate their goals and codify them for other agencies and organizations to better work towards as a secondary goal of that organization. Doctrine allows for agencies and organizations to clearly state their purpose, and helps other organizations better interact with them.

Training can be affected by many different factors, some of which will not be within the power of the training agency to modify or even be aware of. Can Training Enhance Public Employees’ Public Service Motivation? A Pretest–Posttest Design (Chen, Chen, Hsieh, 2019) does a deep dive on public service motivation (PSM). The article finds that there are many different factors to PSM, and that PSM affects the efficacy of training. It may seem obvious to say that motivation will affect the success of training, but it does still need to be stated. Selecting for those employees who would benefit from training is a task which is neither small nor simple but is important. Being able to make this selection is another reason that having capable administrators and managers is important.

Every employee deserves access to equal training, but training equity is impossible. This is due to the fact that some employees will be more attentive to the training than other employees. This means that while equality is possible, equity is unrealistic. Furthermore, defining the success of the training operation based purely off of the end result of individual members who received training can be dangerous. It is, therefore, more realistic to base training success off of the success of the entire regime after receiving training. While some individual persons who receive training may not further contribute to the success of the agency, overall, there should be an increase in understanding at the agencies which participated in the training. Separating the individual from the organization is an important step to realistically measuring the success of training and should be something which is seriously considered post-training when creating the post-training reports.

In the modern course of events which require specialized traits inside of specialized agencies, training is integral. Long gone are the days of simply muddling through government work, figuring out things as one goes along. In the modern environment it is expected and required that one become an expert in their job academically in order to avoid blunders in live service. This expectation of both lawmakers and the public should be on the mind of all administrators when considering the level and types of training to implement in their organization. Following this doctrine is a solid place to start.

In contemporary organizations, the ever-evolving landscape of technology, diverse business models, and intricate global dynamics necessitates a compelling demand for specialized training. A good example of this was the slight changes in grain markets which occurred as a result of the Russian war in Ukraine in the 2022 and 2023. These market ripples became tsunamis in some parts of the world, drastically changing grain pricing (Aizenman, 2023). As industries rapidly advance, employees must cultivate expertise in niche areas to remain competitive and adaptable. Specialized training not only bolsters individual skill sets but also enhances overall organizational efficacy. With the advent of cutting-edge technologies and the constant evolution of industry standards – such as NPS and NPM – employees equipped with specialized knowledge contribute to innovation, problem-solving, and efficient decision-making. In essence, the demand for specialized training arises from the imperative to equip the workforce with the nuanced proficiencies required to navigate the complexities of the modern business environment, fostering a culture of continuous learning and ensuring organizational resilience in an era of rapid change.

Long has our search for a way to evolve government agencies and their effectiveness existed. Through centuries of human governance history many ideas have been tried, from nepotism as a positive factor to disastrous philosophical ideologies, one thing has been consistently true; good training makes for more effective government. No matter what else is happening in the government, having well trained employees and well taught stakeholders can limit the damage from any other missteps which may take place. In that vein of thought, administrators should consider training in a separate head-space to any other issues or philosophies which are on-going.

Overall, there are a lot of things that should be considered in the beginning phases of creating a training regime and agency. The article will attempt to address some of the many things that one should consider, as there are many items that are often overlooked. In the section after our definitions, we will look at an overview of the types of things that may be expected from the training regime.

1.2 Definitions

There will be many words used throughout this article which will have meanings specific to the article. Those terms will be defined in this section.

Training – An activity with the explicit purpose of teaching or enhancing an employee’s understanding of a policy or procedure.

Interagency – Consisting of two or more entities, typically governmental agencies, but may also include private organizations.

Agriculture – For the purposes of this article agriculture is defined as the act of raising either livestock or crops for the express purpose of selling on the commercial market. This article is not about hobby agriculture.

Doctrine – A set of rules or guidance that when followed typically achieves a similar result.

Stakeholder – A stakeholder is any individual or entity which participates or receives a benefit from the agency or training.

Producer – A person who participates in the raising or growing of livestock or crop for commercial sales.

Funding – The process of collecting and legally storing monetary funds required to run the temporary agency.

Framework – An abbreviated version of a doctrine; summing up the doctrine into its most basic parts.

1.3 Framework

The Joint Guide for Interagency Doctrine, developed by the Department of Defense, is the gold standard reference for initiating joint agency cooperation (USG, 2019). This document specifies that the first requirement for interagency training is creating a temporary agency to support the training mission. This is because the complexity and politics of an interagency training project simply lead to issues if held within a single, existing, agency v. a temporary agency created specifically for the training mission. Creating a temporary agency also simplifies the obligation requirements for training funding.

The forming agencies also need to consider how they will be approaching all parts of the temporary agency. Generally, there are two approaches to most problems: Root Method or Branch Method. Charles Lindblom’s the Science of “Muddling Through” (Lindblom, 1995) discusses two distinct methods of management, the Root Method in which a foundation of an action or policy is carefully laid out before expanding upon it, and the Branch Method, by which an action or policy is taken with no regard foundations, with the expectation of being able to muddle through any issues. It is generally accepted that the Root Method is the safer method, and is therefore more often employed, however, the Branch Method can have merits, such as in rapid testing and prototyping. The Root Method may be obvious in the case of setting up training, but what would the Branch Method look like? This method can be commonly seen in trainings where an experienced employee is asked, last minute, to give a talk about a subject they are knowledgeable in. This sort of training doesn’t have much planning involved but can still be useful.

Typically, temporary agencies have been used for mission specific purposes in defense agencies and law enforcement. This allows for specific scope to be the sole mission objective of those involved in the agency. It also guarantees budget limitations and internal policy considerations. This means that while the agency maintains internal flexibility, it also has outside control by the creating agencies. This allows for a perfect balance of the push and pulls needed to guarantee that the mission objective is met. This can often be used in negotiations wish one of the founding agencies which may wish to maintain some quorum of control over the training agency.

The next step that the doctrine suggests is creating a framework of definitions and approved acronyms. Anyone who has worked with the government will know that every agency has a plethora of acronyms which can be burdensome to learn. Additionally, every agency defines specific words differently. Creating a centralized collection of definitions and acronyms helps smooth over any confusion between agencies which may share the same words and acronyms with different meanings. This framework is, of course, temporary, and therefore these acronyms should not be expected to carry over from the temporary agency to the actual agency.

Creating these definitions is core to the creation of the doctrine. If specific definitions are not set up, it removes one of the major strengths of the temporary agency; to limit itself to a specific scope which would typically be too narrow for a permanent agency. This type of self-restraint would be nearly impossible in a permanent agency, which sometimes can receive further tasks that move it away from its original goal. A temporary agency would have no expectation of taking on additional tasks as it would be tasked with its singular goal, with a way to disband the agency after its goal is met. Therefore, there is no pressure to find “new” work to keep the agency with a purpose.

Acronyms, like definitions, differ from agency to agency, as there is no set federal list of acronyms. Like the definition list, it is important to create an approved acronym list. This list can alleviate issues with common acronyms that are used to many different things in different agencies. It is not uncommon when agencies make interagency communications to sometimes have conflicts of acronyms. It only takes a short google of, “What does FSA stand for?” To see the myriad of different things it can mean, from Flexible Spending Accounts to the Farm Service Agency. This sort of confusion can cause sentences to mean completely different things to different people depending on their understanding of the acronym.

The final step to filling out the prerequisites for beginning training in our temporary agency is to define the goals and purpose of the agency and its training. This may seem obvious, but laying out what the purpose of the agency should be is an important step to ensuring that everyone is on the same page about what purpose the agency serves, leaving nothing to ambiguity. This step is integral for success in the temporary agency’s main endeavor, to train representatives and stakeholders from different government and non-government agencies and organizations.

One cannot know how to achieve a goal without first defining what that goal is. The agency must have a solid foundational goal which it is able to achieve. This goal would also be the main reason for the abolition of the temporary agency. A temporary agency, after all, is temporary, and needs a trigger to dissolve it. A successful dissolution is good for everyone involved and allows for the employees to return to their original agency.

We will be implementing the above items sequentially to create and demonstrate a framework, or doctrine, for a training agency specializing in agricultural cross-training between agencies and organizations. There is one important note, however. Evan Munsing and Christopher J. Lamb in their paper Joint Interagency Task Force–South: The Best

Known, Least Understood Interagency Success (Munsing and Lamb, 2011) point out something very important that should be remembered when implementing our temporary agency. One of the major keys to success with a temporary agency is to be fluid in purpose. The Joint Interagency Task Force-South (JIATF-South) maintained its original purpose, to curtail drug trafficking, but the manner that it went about succeeding in its purpose changed dramatically over time. Starting as a loose consortium of agencies which had various abilities to participate and enact justice, to influencing laws and policy to allow for the JIATF-South to act in a more efficient manner. The ability to execute the task and the manner in which the task was executed shifted greatly as the agency learned how to better function and execute on its given purpose. This basic loop of enhancing the agency is something that should be kept in mind (see exhibit 1). Understanding the dynamic cycle of learning from the operations which are undertaken by the agency in order to attempt to succeed at its goal is key to keeping the agency in a cycle of success. As long as the dynamism exists the agency should typically continue to improve, even if it faces occasional failures or setbacks.

Additionally, as mentioned in Jennifer Nou’s INTRA-AGENCY COORDINATION (Nou, 2015), it is important to note that while congress does have obligation authority, and the authority to make certain demands of any agency, including branched temporary agencies, ultimately the agency has a lot of self-determination afforded to it. This means that, within the framework provided to the agency by congress, the agency may leverage its own discretion and needs to form a more perfect mechanism to carry out the agency’s purpose. In our case, with an agricultural training entity, there may be many things that congress is unaware of, that the agency can simply create or interpret policy to facilitate.

Interagency Training for Comprehensive Operations: Government Partners’ Perceptions of Exercise Maple Guardian (Thompson, Febbraro, Blais, 2010) is a summary paper of a Canadian pre-deployment military training program. The paper focuses on whether the training was successful or useful, and to which agencies. This is of particular importance to us, as we need to be able to answer an important question; who is our training for? This very interesting paper found that different agencies which focused on different parts of the government found the training differently helpful. This may seem obvious, but it is an important point to make. Before creating our temporary agency to kick off our training, we should ask ourselves if the training will be useful for all parties involved. If the training would not be equally useful for all parties, we should find out how to make the training as equitable as possible for all participants. Going back to what we discussed earlier, ensuring equitable training helps guarantee future participation in temporary training agencies among those agencies which formed the training agency before.

For example, if our temporary agency is training other agencies from various levels of government, with the majority being federal, there may be a lack of training specific to state or local level applications of the training. Knowing this before the training starts allows trainers or agency administrators to incorporate lessons specific to other levels of the government to equitably train different agencies which operate at different levels of government. This will greatly improve the effectiveness of training and help facilitate future training, as if training is not seen as useful to an agency, especially if that agency contributed funds to form the temporary agency, they may not do so again in the future. Noting the importance of training equability is something that should be done early on, and with great prejudice, as failing to do so could lead to the training falling apart completely.

Training efficiency is something that should be considered and documented so as to further improve future training endeavors. Keeping a running history of what trainings have been effective and with which agencies or sections participated in them will help future training sessions be done in a way which is more efficient. This idea being to prevent waste both in man-hours and in cost. Both of these items are not unlimited. The more efficient the training is the more resources will be left over for even more training, or to improve prior trainings. Record keeping is a good practice which has been implemented in various fields for centuries, there is no reason not to institute a simple solution in this case. These records can be used in the future to further improve the training program.

Overall, implementing this framework in this manner should create a replicable agency initiation process which will create the foundational setup for the temporary training agency.  This foundation will be indispensable when further implementing the specific requirements for the latter suggestions of this doctrine. Having a firm grasp of creating the fundamental framework for the agency is something that should be done before continuing with the agency setup process.

1.4 Temporary Agency Funding

Training in America has become a $100billion dollar industry (Statista, 2022). It has become abundantly obvious that on-the-job training is something that is not only helpful, but an expectation. Training can be expensive, and in our doctrine, training will not be free for the agency. However, there are options as to how to set up and manage the costs of training. We will discuss some of the options available to us, and the costs that may be incurred during training.

The first step that should be taken before large-scale interagency training is the creation of a temporary agency to support the training mission. A temporary agency is an agency which is created for a goal which requires only a temporarily organized unit, different from a permanent agency which has a goal that requires continuing funding and permanent employees. Drafting a temporary agency can be done in a number of ways, depending on the goals and budgets of the drafting entities.

The entities entering into the temporary agency need to first decide how they are wanting to fund the temporary agency. There are many ways that a temporary agency can be funded. One way is to request obligated funding to form the agency. This would typically be done in the most official of circumstances and can be rare. This requires a request from the agency or department to congress for an obligation to the agency or department to specifically create this temporary agency. The next way, which is common when agencies have an official memorandum of understanding with each other, is to take normal training funds and pool them towards this temporary agency. Which means of creation is selected for creating the temporary agency is going to be unique for all cases and depends heavily on past relationships and dealings which happened between the agencies and organizations.

In the case of a brand-new coalition of agencies and organizations for the purpose of the creation of a temporary training agency, there will be more choice in how the temporary agency is set up. In a case where there is no memorandum of understanding, and there is no ability or will to request additional funding from congress, an agency which is employed purely for the purpose of facilitation, without separate payroll and expense, can be formed. The expenses for this temporary agency would then be agreed to be split among the participating agencies or departments. The exact funding requirements would be laid out in the foundational documents of the temporary agency.

Regardless of how the main agencies choose to fund the temporary agency, their budget cannot be created without following basic spending rules, and with respect to the Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA). Budgeting starts with an agency request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This request is processed and sent to the president, who then considers the request in his budget proposal. The president then submits his budget proposal to congress who will return it to the president for a signature (USA, 2023). No matter how funding is created for the temporary agency, it still has its roots in this process, as there is no other way to fund government agencies. It is important to note that because of the funding process, there needs to be a specific plan for obligated funds in this case. Not doing so could lead to awkward cost overruns with no way to pay for them, which could violate several rules, including the ADA. The ADA prohibits agency employees from doing several things, including obligating funds in excess of the funds provided by congress. This should be kept in mind when setting up the funding for the temporary agency.

Funding can also be a tricky item to deal with, which is why nearly all organizations have dedicated staff that deal with funding. Added onto the mathematical difficulties of funding is the political difficulties. Government or not, there is often politics surrounding funding for anything. This is due to the simple nature of limited funding. No one has an infinite amount of money, so there will always be arguments over where the limited funding should go. For example, even though most people would agree that training is needed, some may ask if there is a need to go so far as to fund a temporary agency when there are perfectly good, and free, training videos on YouTube. These types of arguments typically lead to the one making the argument asking for that excess funding for their project. The point being, having a purpose for the funding request is important, and these request documents are something that a professional will be able to create.

Funding is one of the core pieces of creating a temporary agency, as the most common thing which will prevent the formation of a training agency is a lack of funds. This is why it is critical to achieve at the very least a memorandum of understanding for funding purposes between the entities which will be forming the temporary training agency. Scoring at least this memorandum of understanding will allow for some accountability for agency funding. Once there is enough “promised funds” for a successful agency lift-off one can begin to go through the more formal processes which will be required to obtain actuated funding for the temporary agency.

It should be noted that it is important to have some form of guaranteed funding. While it may be like pulling teeth to garner the initial funding, it would be even more difficult to the funding sources and organizations if the temporary agency were to shutdown partway through the training due to lack of funding, only to cost even more to bring it back due to specific administrative costs incurred when restarting an agency. Leaving a positive history of temporarily funded training agencies will make getting the funding for more temporary agencies in the future easier.

At the end of the day, no matter how much one may want to increase the aptitude of employees and stakeholders, everything comes back to funding. Failing to secure funding only guarantees a lack of training. Funding may not be the first point made in this doctrine, but it is certainly one of the points that can quickly become a hard-stop if not adequately managed. The author highly recommends focusing the most manhours and effort of securing funding before proceeding with any other portion of this doctrine, as no other portion of this doctrine – with the exception of volunteer work and donated spaces – can proceed without proper funding.

Funding may be the most intimidating step for administrators, but this step can be taken with confidence, while a million funding requests may have been denied, many have been approved. It is, of course, understandable that one may be worried about the ramifications of a rejected funding proposal, especially if one has staked much political capital on it, but one should not let fear paralyze them. Know that when proposing funding, even if one’s proposal is rejected, the cause is at least a good one.

The Unted States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 2023 had $475.16 Billion in budgetary resources. (USASpending, 2023). The majority of this was obligated towards food programs such as SNAP. However, there were still many billions of dollars that were spread out among the many agencies of the USDA. This means that the USDA has a very large pool of funding, one of the largest of any department, and by extension its agencies some of the most of any agency. The point being, there is money in the USDA to set aside for these training programs. As prior discussed, where the funding for the temporary agency comes from will, of course, depends on the founding agencies and organizations. Regardless of who those organizations are, agencies of the USDA will have some money available. It may not be a lot, but it should be enough. This, of course, is not a guarantee, but it is something to consider. If one digs under enough couch cushions one should be able to find some funding.

One final note that should be made is the caveats of funding as suggested in this doctrine. There will always be exceptions to everything, and funding is no different. Before any administrator makes any funding decisions or assumptions one should always consult with the department or specialist within one’s agency who is an expert in procurement and funding requests. There may always be some exceptions to rules and expectations, even those which are so normal as to be seen as obvious. Doing one’s due diligence is the best way to ensure that one is never taken by surprise by some obscure rule or policy which may prevent the movement of funds in a way that is normatively consistent.

1.5 Hierarchy

When looking at how to form the hierarchy of the agency there are several examples of successful temporary (and task-specific permanent) agencies which we can look to for examples. The Joint Interagency Task Force-South (JIATF-South) is a perfect example of a successful interagency temporary organization which incorporates a large number of agencies under its umbrella (Munsing and Lamb, 2011). The JIATF-South is incorporated by nine different agencies and eleven partner nations, making it a complex temporary agency, but one that also thrives.

An interesting aspect of the hierarchical organization of the JIATF-South was that it followed a “branch” method of organization, rather than the more common “root” method. This means that the agency chose to evolve according to its objective, rather than have a static organizational chart. The JIATF-South’s core objective was combating drug trafficking; however, it ran into issues where the military personal involved were legally barred from directly participating in law enforcement activities related to the enforcement against drug smuggling. This means that the military organizations provided intelligence, logistics, and transportation, while the law enforcement agencies provided on-the-ground enforcement.

The Vice President’s Task Force on South Florida and then the National Narcotics Border Interdiction System further cemented these roles. However, these changes in laws and expectations did not negatively affect the JIATF-South due to the flexibility of the organization. This is a lesson which we will look to incorporate as we set up the hierarchy of our joint training temporary agency. Let us look at an example of a potential hierarchy, and how the agencies and their positions were decided.

In our example hierarchy we will be looking at a temporary agency created for the purpose of training three agencies on wetland protections. This temporary agency will also source the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Natural Resources Conservations Service (NRCS), the Farm Service Agency (FSA), and the Soil and Wildlife Conservation District (SWCD) will be the three foundational members of our temporary agency. All three of these agencies deal with wetland protections and conservation in some manner. The NRCS and FSA are federal agencies while the SWCD is a state level agency.

All three of these agencies – and our source agency – define wetlands slightly differently. As our resource agency the EPA defines a wetland as, “Wetlands are areas where water covers the soil, or is present either at or near the surface of the soil all year or for varying periods of time during the year, including during the growing season.” (EPA, 2023). The FSA’s definition of a wetland is somewhat complex, as the agency relies on Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) wetland determinations. NRCS defines wetlands as having, “…prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation (plants that live in water or saturated soil conditions) under normal circumstances, meaning vegetation that would exist if not farmed. Predominance of hydric soil (soils that are impacted by ground or surface water to support hydrophytic vegetation) and; wetland hydrology (ground or surface water that inundates or saturates soils sufficiently to support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation).” (NRCS, 2023). The SWCD has differing definitions of wetlands depending on what state that specific SWCD is in. This makes the SWCD the most difficult to peg down a definition for.

How do we come to terms with the myriad of opinions and definitions which differ so much from one agency to another? We will discuss setting up definitions later which will be used by the temporary agency, but for now we must discuss how we come to terms with who should lead the agency, given the differences in opinion which different agencies may have around the same topic. There are several methods that can be employed, different methods will be useful in different circumstances, and depends on the purpose of the temporary organization. For our example agency, we will say that this is an agency focused on wetlands training. When looking at who should lead a training agency focused around wetlands we will have to look at which agency has the most interaction with wetlands. When it comes to wetland determinations the FSA has a memorandum of understanding with NRCS and uses NRCS recommendations for FSA determinations. Using this information, we can at least say that FSA will be subordinate to NRCS inside the training agency. The SWCD is a state level agency, and so while they are involved with wetlands, the NRCS encounters more wetlands on a consistent basis, and therefore we will make the SWCD also subordinate to the NRCS in our training agency. In the end our hierarchy looks as follows.

The NRCS, as our lead agency, would be the one to temporarily assign a lead trainer for the training agency. This lead trainer would be in charge of creating the training schedule and courses. The FSA and SWCD could of course contribute, but to keep training neutral it would need to be agreed material. This trainer would be the lead trainer which would decide upon training material based on the further mentioned agency definitions and training goals. Creating a hierarchy can become very political, and often leads to some infighting, however, laying out a logical reasoning that can easily be followed for why a hierarchy weas set in the way that it can help alleviate these issues. Furthermore, if agencies simply cannot come to an agreement on an agency-based hierarchy, they can also choose to follow an individual based hierarchy.

Like any organization, having a clear chain of command is integral for smooth operations. When a decision needs to be made quickly, members of the training agency must know who they should be going to for answers. Agency paralysis due to a lack of a clear chain of command is something that, while common, should be easy to alleviate. There is no good reason to not have a specific chain of command in place, created as a part of the foundational documents of the temporary training agency. That is not to say that the agency cannot have a dynamic or flowing chain of command due to training requirements, but, at the very least, having a clearly defined chain of command at the creation of the agency will keep mistakes from happening which have no place occurring.

There may be some temptation to not set up a clear hierarchy during the foundational phase of creation. This will typically be caused by an ill-fated attempt at appeasement towards a specific agency or organization which refuses to subordinate itself. One should consider the seriousness of that organization when considering including them in one’s training agency. Does that agency actually intend to join the training in good faith, or are they only interested in teaching their way? This will, of course, be a very political opinion, but it should be considered, as it is not uncommon for one bad cog to take down a machine, no matter how well built.

1.6 Defining the Training

Creating an agency specific lexicon to be referenced during training is an un-skippable, necessary, step to establishing a training regimen which can be beneficial and understood by all participants. How definitions are compiled and disseminated in the temporary agency is crucial to the success of the temporary agency. Defining the language used in an agency sets expectations for the use of the verbiage in the agency, and how the agency is to react to the use of the term (Nou, 2015).

The first step to crafting the lexicon that will be used by the training agency is to gather the verbiage that must be defined. Words that should be defined are those that are critical to the mission; that is, agricultural training. For example, there is no need to define what a battleship is for our agricultural training agency, however, there is a need to define what a wetland is. There is a basic three-stop process we can use to see if a definition is needed for a particular word.

First, is the word relevant to training? As we discussed earlier, we have no need to define what a battleship is. Second, is there a disagreement over the meaning of a word? In our example, the agencies have slight differences in how they define a wetland, so there is a need to define it. Last, is a definition possible? While this may not be directly relative to agricultural training, if we were talking about something like consciousness, there may be no way to properly define the word.

Following these steps, one should come up with this basic flow of deciding whether or not to define a word which may be used by the temporary agency during training (see exhibit 2). It is important to use some type of flow process like the one mentioned here, as over defining, or defining too many words, can lead to a useless document. If one defines too many words, the human element of failure comes into play, as a normal person may not read the definitions, or only skim over them. It is important to only define only needed words in order to keep engagement by the consumers of the training and the stakeholders of the temporary agency. Remember, the agency’s goal is training, not creating a dictionary.

The agency will find the importance of keeping an agency specific list of definitions during training, as a difference in definitions will often be discovered in a myriad of items which will likely be on the training agenda. This will be an incredibly useful reference material that will likely continually be referred to for various reasons on a regular basis. Without this lexicon two problems will persist. First, there will not be a connection between the training and the proper usage of the training verbiage. For example, if one is training on wetlands and the trainees believe that wetlands are specific to land contiguous to a body of water, and the trainer is speaking of any area of land which has wetland specific vegetation, the trainees are not going to fully understand the lesson. Second, having a solid list of definitions prevents any sort of argument over the language used during the training. It can be said that all arguments start from a disagreement over a definition. There is a modern term for this type of argument, known as Layne’s Law (C2, 2014), however, the idea that all arguments stem from a disagreement of definitions dates back to the golden age of philosophy.

This is one of the biggest roadblocks that can often be missed by training agencies and organizations. It is one that the reader should keep keenly in their mind. Keeping up with these misunderstandings will not always be easy, as people do not speak their definitions out loud. It can sometimes prove to be surprisingly difficult to even know that there is a difference in understanding of a definition. Sometimes definitions only differ slightly, so in average conversation it may not seem like there is a difference at all. The difference may only come to light when attempting to put together a program or policy. At that point it could become a deadly disaster for the agency.

As a final note on hierarchies, there is one important item that administrators should remember. There are no hard rules when it comes to hierarchies. One should always set up the hierarchy is a way which is best for the immediate needs of the training agency, and one should do just that. There may be some temptations to create organizational hierarchies in ways that may not make sense, and those pressures should be ignored. One of the major purposes of the temporary training agency, as pointed out in this doctrine, is separating from the politics of the founding agencies. Administrators should do what is best for the goals of the temporary agency, and not what is expedient or easy.

1.7 Agricultural Specializations

When it comes to training, there are some specific items which should have special attention paid to them. As we have discussed in prior sections, understanding the specific training needs of the region is important. It may not make sense, for example, to include agricultural employees and stakeholders from different temperate regions when training on agricultural production which only can grow in areas that is excluded from areas which some trainees or stakeholders are from. We spoke about funding earlier, but not only does exclusive training eat away at funding, but it also wastes the precious time of stakeholders and trainees.

There also needs to be serious thought put into the level of agricultural knowledge which stakeholders and trainees will have coming into the training. There are different levels of knowledge which can be expected in different locations. There can also be varying levels of knowledge which can be expected when dealing with specific products. For example, there is a higher chance of stakeholder and trainee knowledge in a crop like corn v. something like sugar beets. A good way to find the general knowledge level of specific training materials is via a survey. Something as simple as a sliding scale survey (such as on a scale from 1 to 10) can help poll the literacy of the stakeholders and trainees. Knowing one’s audience is important in any number of situations, and training is certainly one where this knowledge is essential.

Attitude is another thing which should be taken into account when setting up training in agriculture. There are two main schools that typically inhabit agricultural jobs: the outdoor worker and the businessman. It should be no surprise that it is not uncommon for those who work within the USDA to have an affinity for the outdoors and outdoors activities such as hunting. It is very common, for example, for those who work in the FSA to also work on or own a farm. On the other hand, it is also not uncommon for many workers to have loan and financial backgrounds, as there are many loans and financials in agriculture. It is therefore important to know what type of individuals will be forming the training agency’s stakeholders. For example, if one has a majority of stakeholders who own or operate farms it may be a waste of time, and even insulting, to start with an agriculture-101 style course. On the other hand, if the training is made up of mostly those with financial backgrounds an introduction to agriculture may be necessary.

This is why it is important to gather a deep understanding of the stakeholders and trainees that will be attending the training agency before agency training begins. Having done this rich research via surveying and other methods will prove to be invaluable in the long wrong, saving agency money and time.

One of the excellent assets of, particularly, agricultural training, is the large amount of physical locations that would be available around the country, depending on the agency. For example, the FSA has a presence in every single county in the country, including 4,500 physical locations around the country. To add on to this, often these FSA locations are actually joint USDA service centers, which means they have multiple agencies housed inside. The typical USDA service center contains the FSA, NRCS, and SWCD. While the FSA and NRCS are federal agencies under the umbrella of the USDA, the SWCD is a local agency. This means there is already interagency cooperation occurring at these physical locations. This means that a USDA service center is a great place to start when looking towards a possible location of an area with a collection of agencies to work with for agricultural training. Even if your agency is not one of the agencies that often occupies a USDA service center, it may still be a good idea to include this collection of agricultural agencies, especially if you have interest in local interactions with local stakeholders.

1.8 Stakeholder Participation

There is one last entity which should have input into agricultural interagency training, stakeholders, specifically producers. According to Strategy Management Consulting, Stakeholder engagement can be defined as, “…process that organizations can follow in order to listen to, collaborate with, or inform (or a combination of all three) their existing stakeholders.” (SMC, 2021). Stakeholder participation is proven to be a necessity for successful organizations. Jean Grace’s Interagency Training (Grace, 2007) is a cautionary tale of overconfidence in a system which does not have proper stakeholder interaction. This document looks at Iraq and Afghanistan as corner stones of interagency cooperation to achieve a goal. The document cautiously supposes that the interagency doctrine that was used at that time, circa 2007, would be enough to ensure the success of the operations that the United States had endeavored on at that time. However, the article predicts its own failure, pointing out that there was a still a lack of stakeholder participation in these countries by the country’s residents. Ultimately, as we would find out, Iraq and certainly Afghanistan, would reject the United States due to errors of cultural understanding. Now, certainly some would argue that it was impossible for our cultures to ever mix, but one could argue that this was a failure of stakeholder participation. The point being, stakeholder participation is ultimately something that must be considered, as the stakeholders are the ones on the receiving end of the items in our discussions.

Interagency training programs are poised to deliver significant advantages for stakeholders engaged in collaborative efforts across diverse organizations. Anticipated outcomes encompass a marked improvement in communication and coordination, cultivating a shared comprehension of objectives, procedures, and duties. This, in turn, facilitates a more streamlined and effective response to emergencies or collaboration among organizations. Stakeholders can also look forward to heightened interoperability, as personnel from different agencies acquire the ability to seamlessly collaborate, capitalizing on one another’s strengths and specialized knowledge. Furthermore, interagency training nurtures an increased understanding of the varied roles and functions within each agency (also known as cross-training), fostering a climate of mutual respect and trust among team members. In essence, stakeholders should expect a more agile and tightly knit interagency collaboration, better prepared to navigate the intricate landscape of contemporary challenges and yield coordinated and impactful results.

Not including stakeholder opinion and participation not only harms stakeholder interaction and expectations but can actually cause incorrect or deficient training. For anyone who has ever worked for a government agency, you may have heard a phrase like, “Whoever wrote this policy must be from D.C.” or something similar. There are some policies which are so divorced from reality or what stakeholders need, that it is clear that they were written and created without any stakeholder interface. Lacking training that has stakeholder interaction can lead to these situations. Situations where training is teaching theoretical policy but not reality. Trainers and administrators should consider serious ways to incorporate stakeholder participation into everything that the temporary training agency does. Not only is it good policy that produces better training, it is also more democratic to involve the voting public in any sort of institution which involves the government.

Furthermore, preventing an echo chamber by bringing in opinions outside of the circle of professionals that would be attending training at our temporary training agency could bring in fresh ideas. It is not uncommon for echo chambers to form, especially inside of a group of like-minded or professionally oriented individuals (Arguedas, Robertson, Fletcher, Nielsen, 2022). Popping these bubbles is an important part to discovering what is currently lacking in agency and individual understanding of policy, programs, and ideology which would be taught at the training agency. These fresh ideas could lead to improvements in current training regiments, and suggestions for new training which may have been overlooked before. Creating spaces in which clashing ideas can form new ideologies has been a basic tenant of philosophy and policy since the beginning of democratic discussions. From Socratic Discussions to parliamentary debate, ensuring that a space exists in which opinions outside of those which are already shared by the mainstay of the agency will almost always prove to be beneficial. Except in the case of espionage and sabotage, there is rarely any downside to taking in diverse opinions.

In a democratic styled system, stakeholder participation in government is not only optimal, but also integral. A democracy cannot stand without the support of its people. Stakeholder participation in the governmental process has been shown to increase efficiency and legitimization (Jastram and Berberyan, 2023). Stakeholders can serve as an indicator for the effectiveness of programs and policy, as they are the ones most affected by them. Therefore, including stakeholders in any decision-making process inside of a governmental organization will nearly always result in a net positive result. This, combined with years of research and improvements helps form a better understand of the needs of the organization as a whole, and thus pushes the agency towards a more perfect understanding of its place inside of the greater organization of the United States Government, which is thusly a prime purpose of agency improvement; after all, if an agency has no purpose, it is only a burden.

Democratization also leads to one very important boon, participation. Any person who has worked in or with a government agency invested in agricultural will have stories about the difficulties of working with those suspicious of government intentions. While there is nothing wrong with looking out for oneself, it is also unfortunate that so many citizens feel the need to be suspicious of government services. Often this fear comes from the feeling of a lack of control and oversight of said agencies. By increasing producer and stakeholder participation in government training, those stakeholders that work with agencies will feel like that have more control over the agency, and feel that they understand what and why the agency does what it does. This decreases the fear of participation, and helps increase the number of stakeholders who choose to participate in government programs in agriculture.

1.9 Expectations

There are several expectations which can be had after the initial creation of the temporary agency. The agency founders, if following the doctrine’s suggestions, should have a clear statement of intent for the temporary agency. The intent of the agency should be baked into the core of the temporary agency’s foundational documents. This means the foundational statement of the purpose of the agency, and the agency’s definitions. One can tell a lot about the intentions of an agency from their definitions alone, but making the purpose clear during the foundation of the temporary agency is even more important, as we will need to know when the temporary agency has achieved its goal in order to know when to shut the temporary agency down.

Among the expectations that can be had of the temporary agency, is for members of the agency to have a clear understanding of its purpose. This may seem obvious, but some agencies can have muddled purposes, and so our temporary agency having a clear purpose can be very helpful. This helps alleviate what can be one of the most difficult points of onboarding, explaining the purpose of an agency. While an agency may do a thing, explaining why it does that thing can sometimes be difficult. Having foundational documents which explain exactly the purpose of an agency helps onboarding employees and participants have an exact understanding of why they are there.

Hand-in-hand with this, is the expectation that goals can be set in a manner which pushes towards the main purpose of the agency. Because the purpose of the agency is clear, setting specific trainings with the purpose of reaching the agency goal is clear. When a member of the temporary agency presents a training, the manager can simply ask if that training achieves the goal of the agency as a litmus test for the proposed training. This makes program management much easier for the managers.

Setting goals during training provides a roadmap for personal and professional development, guiding individuals toward measurable achievements and milestones. These objectives serve as motivational beacons, offering a clear sense of direction and purpose. Goals create a framework for self-assessment, enabling individuals to track progress and celebrate successes along the way. These milestones can also be used by administrators to track their employees progress and to document the effectiveness of training. They instill a sense of accountability and discipline, fostering a dedicated mindset towards continuous improvement. Through goal-setting, individuals can better focus their efforts, allocate resources efficiently, and overcome challenges with a structured approach. Moreover, well-defined goals enhance self-confidence, as the tangible progress achieved becomes a source of pride and motivation. In essence, setting goals during training transforms aspirations into actionable steps, propelling individuals towards heightened levels of competence and accomplishment.

Perhaps the biggest and most important expectation that one can have if following the suggested doctrine is repeatability. The entire purpose of doctrine isn’t necessarily standardization – though that certainly can have a similar effect – but repeatability. If one follows a doctrine, they should expect that each time they follow it they should come to the same or similar results. This repeatability is one of the biggest strengths to using a doctrine, and one of the main purposes of doctrine development. Having a document that can be consulted anytime that an agency or department wishes to create a specific training regime is something which is invaluable to any organization. Furthermore, if one treats this doctrine as a living document then changes can be made as more experience with creating temporary agencies is acquired, thus making the doctrine even more effective and even more accessible.

Furthermore, a basic expectation of this doctrine is a successful training apparatus. While the training material itself is out of the scope of this doctrine, the ability to have an entity which exists as a container to training is something that can help alleviate issues that prevent successful training. By following this doctrine those who are experts in the field of training will have a blank room to begin unpacking their vast and specialized knowledge into.

Interagency training serves as a linchpin in easing the responsibilities of administrators, providing them with a toolkit to navigate the intricate landscape of cross-functional collaboration (or interagency cooperation). Administrators can expect streamlined operations because of improved communication channels established through training initiatives. This enhanced communication translates into more efficient decision-making processes, allowing administrators to swiftly address issues that require cross-agency cooperation – such as is the case between the NRCS and FSA which share a memorandum of understanding as related to wetland conservation. Additionally, interagency training fosters a culture of mutual understanding and shared goals among personnel from different agencies, minimizing misunderstandings and potential conflicts. Consequently, administrators can confidently delegate tasks, trusting that team members possess the necessary skills to work seamlessly across agencies. Furthermore, the development of a cohesive and interoperable workforce through training empowers administrators to respond more effectively to dynamic challenges, enhancing their overall capacity to lead and manage complex, inter-agency initiatives. In essence, inter-agency training becomes a strategic asset, lightening the administrative load and enabling a more proficient and harmonized approach to multi-agency endeavors.

By having a trained workforce agencies can run more smoothly, and more efficiently. Any time or money spent on training with come back to the agency in droves. Trained workers are able to more quickly carry out tasks and with less mistakes. Additionally, trained workers can train other workers, creating a cascading training phenomenon which can lead to a few trained employees creating more trained employees and thus exponentially increase the capabilities of the agency. This should be very quickly obvious, as after training are complete, if done to required terms, trained employees should be of immediate value to the organization, whereas without the training these employees may not be able to carry out many tasks, and may make mistakes that with the training would not be made.

Having a mindset of the positives of training will result in more obvious successes, but there should also be an understanding and expectation of items which training cannot fix. For example, while training may be useful for filling in knowledge gaps, trainings will be unlikely to fix lack of funds or abridge policy which prevents the agency from being inefficient. There are some things that no amount of training can fix, these things are usually baked into the agency, and must be changed at a legislative level. While it is good to have high expectations of training, one should remember to keep them within the realm of the possible. That is the only caution that the author will give specifically on expectations.

Insufficient training for employees within agricultural agencies and organizations can lead to a cascading failure. Inadequately trained personnel may struggle to grasp the intricacies of modern farming practices, jeopardizing the effective implementation of crucial agricultural policies. From mismanagement of resources to flawed decision-making, the repercussions extend to compromised crop yields, environmental degradation, and economic instability for farmers. A lack of expertise among agency staff may also impede their ability to provide accurate guidance and support to the agricultural community, hindering overall sector growth – especially among the underserved and limited resource group. Furthermore, without well-trained personnel, there is an increased risk of overlooking emerging challenges such as pest outbreaks, climate change impacts, and sustainable farming practices. In essence, the ramifications of undertrained agricultural government agency employees reverberate across the entire food production system, underscoring the vital importance of investing in comprehensive training programs for those tasked with stewarding this critical sector.

On a national strategic scale, there is immense value in agricultural training in governmental agencies and support organizations. At the basest level, agriculture may very well be the single most important national asset. There are many things which would severally harm the country if large failures occurred, but few items would lead to actual mass death in the same way that a collapsing agricultural industry would. We have a real-world example of this. Between 1959 and 1961 up to Thirty-million people died in China as a result of large-scale agricultural collapse. This was caused by institutional changes (Yang, 2000). We are not suggesting that not training one’s employees would lead to this, but we are simply pointing out what can happen in the absolute worst-case scenario when there is a lack of proper understanding of agriculture.

Looking at such human tragedy as the worst-case scenario, one could hope that even at the highest levels – when considering only national strategy – one could see the appeal of ensuring equitable training among the agricultural workforces. Keeping employees who work in such industries up to date with training helps keep the country’s agricultural ecosystem flowing in a safe and manageable manner. Keeping the population alive and healthy is the most basic tenant of modern governance, and so this truth should be considered as the utmost important goal of this training regime.

2.0 Common Issues

When attempting to implement the suggestions of this doctrine, there may be some obstacles which arise. Some of these obstacles are more common than others. We have covered some obstacles already in our discussion points, but there are some others which may also arise that should be talked about so that administrators can plan for them. Mitigation of issues is, after all, one of the primary tasks of an administrator. These common issues can, and should, be considered in the foundational phase of agency formation.

Training workers in agricultural government agencies presents unique challenges due to the multifaceted nature of the agricultural sector. Firstly, the diversity of tasks within such agencies, ranging from crop management to regulatory compliance, demands a tailored approach to training that addresses the distinct skill sets required for each area. Additionally, the rural dispersion of agricultural activities poses logistical challenges, making it difficult to conduct centralized training sessions. The dynamic nature of the agricultural industry, influenced by factors such as climate change and technological advancements, necessitates continuous updates to training programs. Balancing traditional farming practices with modern, sustainable methods also poses a challenge, requiring training strategies that bridge generational and technological gaps. Addressing these challenges is crucial to ensuring that agricultural government agency workers are well-equipped to navigate the complexities of the sector, promote sustainable practices, and effectively support the agricultural community.

One of the first issues that one is likely to face is the core suggestion of this doctrine, the foundation of a temporary agency. This suggestion mostly focuses on larger and longer-term training, while it is not the suggestion of this doctrine to form an agency for a single week of training, we have shown the importance of temporary agencies. Suggesting a break-off agency for training will almost certainly be met with the question of why it is necessary. This doctrine provides both an abbreviated purpose for this action, and an in-depth answer. Administrators or trainers’ suggestion this action should become familiar with the purposes of a temporary agency as explained in this doctrine and in further readings.

Funding will likely be the next issue brought up, perhaps even in the same line of questioning. We have covered, in detail, the expectations for funding and how such funding can be acquired. An administrator using this doctrine should not be caught off-guard with funding related questioning. However, we also recommend that administrators perform detailed research into historical agency funding requests and their requirements. It is also possible that there is a fund that already exists for funding, so checking what funding is already available is good practice.

Securing funding for government agencies presents a myriad of challenges rooted in the complexities of budgetary processes and competing demands. One primary difficulty lies in the limited financial resources available within the government’s overall budget. As numerous sectors and agencies vie for a share of these funds, tough decisions must be made regarding resource allocation. Economic fluctuations and shifts in political priorities further compound the challenge, impacting the overall budget landscape and potentially leaving certain agencies underfunded – which can lead to a lack of funding for the temporary agency. Additionally, the need to justify funding requests requires effective communication and a clear demonstration of the agency’s relevance and impact. Political considerations, public opinion, and unforeseen events can also influence funding decisions, introducing an element of uncertainty. Navigating these intricate dynamics demands strategic planning, adept advocacy, and a nuanced understanding of the broader fiscal and political context.

One issue that is more common than one may realize is a lack of expertise in the field that is to be trained on. If an agency is going to extreme lengths to perform long-term interagency training, it is likely that they do not currently have the necessary expertise in the agency. This is something that should be thoroughly explored, as there would be little more awkward than creating the training agency to only find that there are no trainers. Securing a trainer or trainers for the training agency should be done as quickly as a budget can be confirmed.

One other common challenge of interagency training revolves around the harmonization of diverse operational procedures and communication protocols among participating agencies (discussed previously in our chapter of defining the training). Each agency brings its unique set of methodologies and organizational structures, which can create a significant hurdle in achieving seamless collaboration. The issue lies not only in aligning individual skill sets but also in fostering a shared understanding of overarching goals and priorities, for example one agency may focus on conservation while another focuses on crop yields. Misalignment in training methodologies and a lack of standardized procedures can impede the effectiveness of joint exercises, hindering the development of cohesive inter-agency response strategies. Overcoming this challenge requires a concerted effort to establish a common framework that accommodates the distinctive strengths of each agency while ensuring interoperability and effective coordination in the face of complex, multi-dimensional scenarios.

We briefly touched on training locations, but this is one other issue which may come up when planning the training. Locations will never be perfect for everyone, but with the abundance of agency buildings in rural locations it should not be impossible to find a physical location for training, even in rural and low population areas. Even if an agency or organization is not part of the temporary training agency it may still be possible to borrow their physical location for this training. Many agencies have memorandum of understandings and other agreements which can be piggybacked off of to increase the locations that are possible to use for training. Even if there is nothing available, there are a surprising number of low-cost and even free locations which can be used. This can be something as simple as a community center which in many counties and cities can be free.

One more common issue which can be expected is a difference of opinion on the order of importance for training objectives. Different administrators and program managers will have different opinions on which programs are the most important; and thus, which programs should be prioritized for training over others. Going into this training, it should be clear from the founding what the training goal of the agency is. If the goal is training on wetlands, what about wetlands is to be trained on should be immediately defined. This prevents arguments at a later date, and prevents possible cost-overruns if scope-creep were to occur due to different items being added to the training itinerary.

As we have discussed, the best thing that can be done for any issues which come up is to consult with those who have already instituted similar training. Networking is important for improvement and for preventing relatively simple issues from becoming hard-stops to training. Administrators must always be on the look out for ways to improve and re-use what has been done before.

There are many common issues which can come up when attempting to create and run a training regime for long term agricultural training. It is important to keep in mind all that we have discussed in order to not be taken by surprise by any single issue that may arise. It should be noted that no doctrine can cover every issue which could occur, therefore it is up to administrators to think critically about their agency and organizational environment to prepare for any possible future issues which may arise which are not covered by this doctrine. We will discusses agency improvements in this next section. In this section one key suggestion will be to keep records of any issues that the training regimes run into. These can later be used to help overcome any issues of the same type which will be faced in the future. To that end, if one is not the first to embark on the type of training one is engaging in, requesting these documents may be a good way to ensure success.

2.1 Agency Improvement

There is one major advantage to following a doctrine, and that is the institutional knowledge gained every time that the doctrine is implemented. We touched on an improvement loop in an earlier section, but now we will discuss in detail how an agency can use past training profiles to improve future training programs. Using historical training surveys and other records to the advantage of the current training project can improve efficiency and reduce budget overruns. This also means that it is important for the temporary training agency to store and produce these records.

The agency or organization can enhance the effectiveness of future training initiatives by learning from prior training experiences. Through a comprehensive evaluation of past programs, the agency can identify areas of success and areas that require improvement. Analyzing participant feedback, assessing the applicability of acquired skills, and gauging the overall impact of the training provide valuable insights. This retrospective examination allows the agency to refine content, delivery methods, and instructional strategies based on real-world outcomes. Incorporating innovative technologies and incorporating best practices further ensures that training remains relevant and aligned with current needs. Additionally, fostering an open feedback loop between trainers and trainees encourages continuous improvement and adaptation. By leveraging the lessons learned from prior training efforts, a government agency can create a dynamic and responsive training framework that evolves alongside the ever-changing landscape of knowledge and skills needed within its workforce.

Those already familiar with government records management will know the importance- and requirements- of government records storage. However, we will briefly go over these expectations now. There is a plethora of government record retention laws which can be explored on the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) website. The basic idea can be summed up as thus; records of customers and civilian interactions must typically be stored for between five and fifteen years, while contract records are often required to be stored indefinitely. This is, of course, a very brief and inaccurate summary, but it is a good range to keep in mind. Furthermore, it is also suggested to hold onto anything that would be needed in the future.

 The suggestion of this doctrine is that any training scheduling and all non-confidential or private training information should be stored for later use. This may sound like it would require a large amount of storage space, but if these items are stored digitally, it should actually be extremely inexpensive to store this data. For example, Microsoft offers 100 GB of cloud storage for $19.99 a year (Microsoft, 2023). Some services offer even cheaper storage. It is unlikely that it will ever be economical to re-create training schedules and materials instead of simply storing them. To this end, storage is the cheaper option. 

There are two modern obstacles that may appear in the way of training: technology and training firms. The first discussed here will be technology. It is not uncommon to have some in one’s line of work who is not as adjusted to technological advances as others. While this has lessened since the early 2000’s, it is still not unheard of for someone to not be confident with a computer. A quick way to check if preliminary technology training is needed is to conduct a quick survey of those who would take part in the training. If there are individuals who give a negative response to technological abilities, then preliminary technology training may be needed. This training would consist of basic training and a review of the technologies that would be required for the training. While most people are likely comfortable with Microsoft Word and Outlook, if more complex programs like Excel are required then it would not be uncommon for some individuals to admit to not being competent with the programs. If the providing agency is unable to produce training for these items, then a local workforce improvement center or community college may be able to assist.

The second modern issue that may attempt to stonewall training in-agency are training firms. It is out of the scope of this doctrine to examine efficacy of training firms. However, it can be expected that training firms may attempt to bid on training opportunities for the agency. This in itself is not necessarily an issue, however, it can be something that could unexpectedly take away the agency’s ability to train itself depending on circumstances. Agency administrators should prepare in advance for this possibility by exploring reasons that the training should stay inside of the government and not fall to third parties.

There are many obstacles that may stand in the way of training, and this doctrine cannot possibly account for every possibility. As discussed before, administrators should consider possible issues that may be specific to the participating agencies or the particular training material. By doing forward thinking continuity and action planning there should be no issues (outside of a truly remarkable event) that one should not be able to overcome with planning and research.

2.2 Conclusion

In the Journal of Agriculture Education’s article titled, In-service Training Needs of Agriculture Teachers for Preparing Them to Be Effective in the 21st Century (Davis and Jayaratne, 2015), one of the major findings of the research presented is the dynamism of agriculture and its educational needs. In-service educational needs are ever evolving. Advancements in technology and changes to crop and livestock habits in local areas lead to vast differences in required agricultural knowledge from year to year. While there are many conclusions of this doctrine, one of the most important is the need for flexibility. Everything that we have endeavored to create in this doctrine was done with flexibility in mind. You, the reader, will find that all parts of the doctrine are flexible to meet the needs of the specific training program that is instituting this doctrine.

A temporary agency excels in flexibility, allowing one to escape the typical shackles of their organization and instead to form a new agency specific to training needs. This allows for ultimate flexibility in needs. This also allows for an important dynamism in budget scalability. Budgeting is, of course, one of the biggest challenges of training, and having the ability to adjust training to budget needs during the foundational steps of the temporary agency allows one to set budget expectations, and in turn, expectations of the capabilities of the training agency. There are many reasons to set up one’s training regime as a temporary agency, and flexibility is among the most enticing.

As we have discussed, definitions are one of the key factors in a successful temporary training agency. When many different agencies and organizations are brought together, there are going to be overlapping terms with differing definitions. Setting a specific and limited lexicon specific to the training agency will remove confusion and prevent infighting over terms and their applicable meanings. Taking conflict out of the agency in order to focus solely on the training may seem somewhat silly, but it is important. Psychology is important in an organization, after all, organizations are made up of people. It should, then, be obvious to try to remove such basic obstacles from the way of our training agency’s efficiency.

By having moving parts which are reinforced and well-oiled one can create the temporary agency in a way which is both rigid against failure but swift to flex in order to accommodate new needs. This seemingly dichotomous ability is something that is possible to achieve by following the suggestions of this doctrine. It is not something which is easy to achieve, but it is something that we can see is possible. One only needs to look at the examples presented to see how it is possible, although currently rare. The author’s hope is with this doctrine such well-crafted temporary agencies are no longer rare.

There are any number of possible combinations and purposes for a temporary training agency to consider. No single doctrine, including this one, is capable of divining all possibilities which may arise. It is therefore the final suggestion of this author that this doctrine should not be used alone. This doctrine is meant to push the reader into the correct direction when looking to set up interagency training specifically for agricultural entities. However, even more specific doctrine should always also be researched alongside this doctrine to ensure that a full and complete understanding of the requirements for a successful training is completed.

Training has become an expectation and requirement in the modern era. Understanding the correct way to go about setting up and executing effective training as a doctrine is something that all organizations should understand. Furthermore, agriculture is a literal requirement of life. Without agriculture people would die. This area of training is vital for the very lives of those which the trainees serve. Ensuring training in this area is something that should be a concern for all stakeholders of governments; namely everyone.

While there are many doctrines which touch on interagency training, most of these doctrines revolve around DoD related agencies and organizations. Non-DoD related entities, specifically agricultural entities, have very few comprehensive doctrines for interagency training. This sort of dedicated doctrine is something which many in the field have found lacking. This has led to many agencies performing their own training with very little research into best practices, specifically when entering into interagency training. This doctrine has touched on that missing piece, and hopefully can be of use to those which are looking to create a temporary agency for the purpose of agricultural training.

Although there may sometimes be difficulties in setting up training, it is not hyperbole to say that not doing training can be lethal for one’s organization. It may cost money, work hours, and research, but one will almost certainly come out ahead once training has been initialized in the organization. McKinsey & Company has done calculations on the cost effectiveness of training and has thoroughly shown that training is worth the money (Cermak and Mcgurk, 2010). It should not be a worry to an administrator if there is an efficiency to training, as there clearly is. It can, of course, be understood that there will always be some trepidations when any amount of funds are required, but administrators can be assured that the required funding will be well worth the price.

Training as a standard practice in organizations has reshaped the very purpose that we often associate with organizations. Many people now see organizations as owing training to their hires, and this expectation has become a norm. Beyond many of the other reasons to institute training into one’s agency, meeting the expectations of the hired workforce is an important one. While this paper is not about recruitment or employee retention, it should be noted that training, as mentioned earlier, has been shown to increase the retention of employees. This retention can be seen as another cost benefit of training. As we have explored throughout this paper, training is an essential part of agency expression, and something that can be achieved vis this doctrine.

It may seem overwhelming, the amount of work that can be required to ensure a good training regime is successful, but it is worth it. This doctrine has provided a basic framework to success in training. Administrators can further reduce the workload of future training by taking part in the recommended document retention suggestions. By holding onto this experience and networking with other agricultural agencies, one can create an interconnected network of administrators to create a more equitable and simple training course. This doctrine has been specifically created to become positively recursive; to ensure that the more that the doctrine is used the easier it is to use.

Training will only become easier and more available as the doctrine is followed and as the administrators of the training become more familiar with the programs. By implementing this doctrine in its suggested methods things will only become easier to manage. Furthermore, as more training is completed there will be more trained individuals within the agencies and organizations which can then offer their skills to do more training.  This creates a positive circular effect of increasing the ease of training. By having more trainers available one can more easily schedule trainings, as having more trainers means there is a higher chance of a specific training schedule being viable. This circular effect is just one of many that will begin to occur as the doctrine is put into practice over time. This compounding effect will greatly increase the effectiveness of the training over time.

In conclusion, the imperative for interagency training stands resolute as we navigate the complex and interconnected landscape of governance and administration in the modern world. This doctrine underscores the multifaceted benefits of fostering collaboration and knowledge exchange among diverse government agencies and non-governmental organizations. Through shared expertise and a unified approach, interagency training not only enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of public service (especially in New Public Service) but also fortifies our collective ability to address evolving challenges. As we stand at the intersection of global issues like climate change, public health crises, and economic uncertainties, the importance of cohesive, well-coordinated efforts cannot be overstated. Investing in ongoing interagency training initiatives is an investment in resilience, adaptability, and the sustained betterment of society. By acknowledging the intrinsic value of collaboration and committing to the continuous development of our public servants, we pave the way for a more agile, responsive, and ultimately prosperous governance framework.

References

Aizenman, Nurith. February 27, 2023. The impact of the Ukraine war on food supplies: ‘It could have been so much worse’. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/27/1159630215/the-russia-ukraine-wars-impact-on-food-security-1-year-later

Arguedas, Dr Amy Ross & Dr Craig T. Robertson & Dr Richard Fletcher & Prof. Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. January 19, 2022. Echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarisation: a literature review. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/echo-chambers-filter-bubbles-and-polarisation-literature-review

C2. 2014.Laynes Law   https://wiki.c2.com/?LaynesLaw

Cermak, Jenny and Monica Mcgurk. July 1, 2010. Putting a value on training. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/putting-a-value-on-training

Chen, Chung-An & Chih-Wei Hsieh & Don-Yun Chen. September 5, 2019. Can Training Enhance Public Employees’ Public Service Motivation? A Pretest–Posttest Design. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0734371X19872244

Crews Jr., Clyde Wayne. July 5, 2017. How Many Federal Agencies Exist? We Can’t Drain The Swamp Until We Know. https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2017/07/05/how-many-federal-agencies-exist-we-cant-drain-the-swamp-until-we-know/?sh=6ad929501aa2

DOD. Interagency Training Doctrine https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/Interorganizational_Documents/jg_ia.pdf?ver=2020-02-03-151039-500

EPA. 2023. What is a Wetland?  https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/what-wetland

Grace, J. (2007). Interagency Training. National Defense, 91(639), 40-40,42. http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Ftrade-journals%2Finteragency-training%2Fdocview%2F213385718%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D8289

Gray, Gordon. August 3, 2016. The Antideficiency Act: A Primer. https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/antideficiency-act-primer/

Hanson, Melanie. October 1, 2023. College Enrollment & Student Demographic Statistics. https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics

Harris, Megan. 2012. UNDERSTANDING THE 5150 PROCESS: A NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION AND TRAINING IN A RURAL ENVIRONMENT. https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/mp48sc827

Jastram, Sarah Margaretha & Zara Berberyan. Democratic Stakeholder Representativeness, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Volume 33, Issue 4, October 2023, Pages 647–660, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muad005

Johnson, H. W., McLaughlin, J. A., & Christensen, M. (1982). Interagency Collaboration: Driving and Restraining Forces. Exceptional Children, 48(5), 395-399. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298204800502

Katsos, George E. 2020. The Future of Interagency Doctrine. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1104941.pdf

Lindblom, Charles E. 1995. The Science of “Muddling Through”. http://urban.hunter.cuny.edu/~schram/lindblom1959.pdf

Microsoft. 2023. Compare pricing and plans. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/onedrive/compare-onedrive-plans-b

Munsing, Evan and Christopher J. Lamb. 2011. Joint Interagency Task Force–South: The Best Known, Least Understood Interagency Success. https://sofsupport.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/strategic-perspectives-5.pdf

Nou, Jennifer. December, 2015. ARTICLE: INTRA-AGENCY COORDINATION. Harvard Law Review, 129, 421. https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/api/document?collection=analytical-materials&id=urn:contentItem:5HT8-0VY0-02BM-Y2H7-00000-00&context=1516831.

NRCS. 2023. Now that my request is submitted, what can I expect as NRCS completes the wetland determination? https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/resources/guides-and-instructions/certified-wetlands-determination

R. Jason Davis and K. S. U. Jayaratne. 2015. In-service Training Needs of Agriculture Teachers for Preparing Them to Be Effective in the 21st Century. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(4), 47-58. doi: 10.5032/jae.2015.04047.

Sedmak, Jenna. March 11, 2021. What is Stakeholder Engagement, and Why is it Important for Strategic Planning? https://www.smestrategy.net/blog/stakeholder-engagement-management-for-strategic-planning

Statista Research Department. November 22, 2022. Total training expenditures in the United States from 2012 to 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/788521/training-expenditures-united-states/

Thompson, Megan M. & Angela R. Febbraro & Anne-Renee Blais. 2010. Interagency Training for Comprehensive Operations: Government Partners’ Perceptions of Exercise Maple Guardian. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ann-Renee-Blais/publication/235193360_Interagency_Training_for_Comprehensive_Operations_Government_Partners_Perceptions_of_Exercise_Maple_Guardian_La_Formation_Interorganismes_aux_fins_d’Operations_Globales_Perceptions_des_Partenaires_Gou/links/00b7d53cd8597e1f2e000000/Interagency-Training-for-Comprehensive-Operations-Government-Partners-Perceptions-of-Exercise-Maple-Guardian-La-Formation-Interorganismes-aux-fins-dOperations-Globales-Perceptions-des-Partenaires-Gouv.pdf

Torraco, Richard J. Early History of the Fields of Practice of Training and Development and Organization Development. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=cehsedadfacpub

USA Spending. 2023. Department of Agriculture (USDA). https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/department-of-agriculture?fy=2023

USA. 2023. The federal budget process. https://www.usa.gov/federal-budget-process

Yang, Dennis. January 3, 2000. What Caused The Great Chinese Famine? https://res.org.uk/mediabriefing/what-caused-the-great-chinese-famine/