Analysis

The final stage of my project was to review Gainesville Regional Utilities' (GRU) current Board orientation practices in light of the practices of other utilities and my understanding of Instructional Design.  For this section, I will utilize the content of my follow-up interviews with utility representatives (here's the link to the complete list of questions for those interviews).  

During this project, I also met and corresponded with Steve VanderMeer, a recently-retired consultant with Hometown Connections, a "national non-profit utility services organization specializing in the unique challenges of community-owned utilities."  I had attended a few of Steve's excellent presentations at American Public Power Association (APPA) national conferences, where he discussed utility board orientation and governance issues.  A few years prior, Steve had sent an informal inquiry to the APPA governance listserv that was similar to my own.  Based on the results of that inquiry, he completed a short article on governing board member orientations that he shared with me, along with some of the sample materials that utilities provided him. 

Results from Follow-Up Interviews with Utility Representatives

After completing the online survey, nine utility representatives agreed to a follow-up interview to elaborate upon their respective orientation processes.  In some instances, we completed these interviews together over the phone.  In others, they simply asked that I send them the follow-up questions and they responded in writing.  Below are the questions I used and any responses that I found to be insightful.

1) What are the learning objectives of your utility’s orientation?  Some of the objectives provided by utility representatives included:

• General overview of the utility, including its financials and strategic plan.

• Overview of the individual service areas within the utility.

• Explain the utility's fuel mix, transmission/distribution system, and service territory.

• General overview of the public power industry.

• Explain rights and responsibilities of Board members, including legal and policy guidelines related to their role.

• Explain the relationship between the utility and the municipality it serves as well as relevant municipal policy.

• Familiarize them with the vast amount of information available to them and where they can find it.

2) What offices and which utility employees do members meet with as part of their orientation?  Some of the orientation sessions specified by utility representatives included:

• Members of the utility leadership team  

• CEO/General Manager and General Counsel

• City Manager and Division Heads (e.g., Finance, Natural Gas, Engineering Services, Production, Transmission/Distribution, Safety)

• Human Resources administrator

• Staff liaison to the Board 

3) Are facility tours included as part of the orientation?  If so, which facilities are typically toured?

Yes (7) 

Maybe (1)

No (1)

Some sample tours included electric generation facilities, water/wastewater treatment facilities, substations, and customer service offices.  One respondent noted that, depending upon the size of the utility's service area, these facilities could be located significant distances apart.

4) Approximately how long does the entire orientation process take?

Respondents reported 2-4 hour meetings for the main session/meeting with leadership team.  Some of those that offer facility tours as part of their orientation noted that these can sometime be challenging to schedule and thus can stretch on for months as each tour can take up to a few hours.

5) What orientation materials (printed or electronic) are provided to the members?

One representative provided a copy of the member packet that is provided to all board members.  Another representative provided a comprehensive outline of all of the materials provided and information covered in the orientation.

Below is a table that lists many of the contents contained in these orientation packets.

Two representatives discussed an "online portal" that is made available to their Board members and contains many of the orientation materials as well as company policies, meeting minutes, backup materials for meetings, rate comparisons, legislative guidelines, official statements, and budget info.  Two representatives stated that Board members are each provided with a tablet where they use Microsoft Teams or another similar app to share information.

6) Is the orientation process a one-time occurrence or do members take part in periodic “refresher” trainings?

One representative stated that whenever a new member was oriented, all existing members would also be encouraged to attend as a refresher.  They felt that this model worked well and suggested that other utilities adopt it as well.  In this instance, however, the entire orientation process was only two hours long and happened infrequently due to low Board turnover.

Another respondent reported ongoing "lunch and learns" that served as orientation sessions for new members and refreshers for existing members.  Six out of nine of the reps said that trainings are repeated and/or new trainings are offered on a regular basis (annually, semi-annually, quarterly, etc.).  Some of these include state-mandated trainings such as cybersecurity and open records.  Three respondents noted that their utility offers Board members opportunities for attendance at selected conferences of APPA and other regional public power associations. 

Instructional Design for Utility Board Orientations

More than 80% of the respondents to my survey indicated that an orientation is provided to their members, so there seems to be broad consensus that such a process is necessary.  Yet my personal experience with GRU's orientation and interviews with a variety of utility professionals throughout the country has led me to assume that they have largely been designed in an ad hoc fashion by non-educators and similarly adjusted over time as conditions change (e.g., funding/staffing, legal requirements, the pandemic).  I have found no evidence of the use of Instructional Design in the process of creating, employing, or assessing these orientation procedures and materials.  So I would now like to consider some of the major elements of the Instructional Design process that might help to improve their quality, consistency, and outcomes.  For this section of my project, I rely upon selections from Dr. Albert D. Ritzhaupt's e-book "ADDIE Explained," (2014) which has been my go-to Instructional Design reference guide throughout my graduate studies.

Analysis

Public utility board members are as diverse as the communities that they represent.  Some have been elected by their community with management of the local utility but one of many qualifications that electors may have considered in their selection.  Other leaders are seasoned utility professionals appointed by the utility's customers or owners with their specific experiences and skill set a key component of their selection.  Yet, even for those with utility expertise, service on a public body--with its accompanying rules of order, governance laws, and fiduciary responsibilities--may be a new endeavor.  The composition of both GRU's City Commission and its Utility Advisory Board demonstrate significant diversity in all of these areas.  Apart from background knowledge of the utility industry, board members can vary significantly in their educational and career backgrounds, ideology, and life experience.  These differences mean that each board member will have unique educational needs with regard to their orientation.  

Yet ideally these diverse perspectives and experiences come together with a unifying goal of good governance of the utility in service to its community.  Since the utility industry is tightly regulated and its customers have high expectations in terms of safety, reliability, and cost, board members must be prepared to oversee a utility that meets these standards.  Hence there is a normative need for appropriate preparation for board service and the instructional problem at hand is to help assure that these board members are equipped with the necessary tools, knowledge, and relationships to meet this need (Ritzhaupt, 2014).  A proper board orientation should provide them with these things, yet must also be accomplished in a timely fashion, as many of these positions are not paid and most members are required to juggle multiple responsibilities.  

Given the contextual and relational nature of service on utility boards, I contend that instructional materials alone are insufficient to appropriately orient members.  Board members need to meet the actual people who do the work of the utility, from the plant operators to the lineworkers to the management, and ideally they should meet them where they work so that they can truly get to know the important assets that these workers spend their lives managing and maintaining.  I also argue that, given the ongoing evolution of the utility industry and the ever-pressing need of planning for an uncertain future, the orientation process should be designful and iterative.  Stakeholders, including utility leadership and staff, plus board members of varying experience, should regularly evaluate and revise the orientation goals, procedures, and materials to help prepare members for the dynamic nature of this position and to ensure the buy-in of all participants.  

Design

If we consider an instructional plan for utility board members in light of Gagne's (1985) taxonomy of learning, the primary domains of learning under consideration are Intellectual Skills, Verbal Information, and Attitude.  Most board members will be introduced to many new concepts, procedures, and terms throughout the course of their orientation.  They must successfully synthesize this new knowledge into a framework that allows them to engage with and assess the recommendations of the industry professionals that run the utility.  Oftentimes, utility staff will bring them relevant data and a decision point and they must evaluate a variety of paths forward and help decide the best one.  They will ideally perform these tasks with an open mind and an attitude of humility and service to their customers and community.   

Few of the utility representatives that I interviewed were able to articulate unambiguous learning objectives related to their board orientations.  Though the specific objectives will vary depending upon the services offered by the utility, below is my attempt to identify some generalized objectives that may be useful to orientation planners.

By the end of the board orientation process, members should be able to:

• Recognize standard vocabulary and acronyms used in ongoing planning and management of the utility. (Cognitive)

• Identify general procedures used to manage the utility's assets, laws governing the utility, and policies of the governance board. (Cognitive)

• Examine services that the utility offers in order to identify potential improvements in efficiency, sustainability, and customer satisfaction. (Cognitive)

• Evaluate a variety of future planning scenarios to help determine the best paths forward for the utility. (Cognitive)

• Demonstrate respect for and a desire to adhere to laws and policies governing the board. (Affective)

•  Model respectful behavior toward the professionals that manage the utility's operations. (Affective)

• Express openness toward and interest in the sentiments of the customers that the utility serves. (Affective) 

With regard to the sequencing of the orientation content, we must consider that, as discussed above, board members will arrive at their positions from very diverse backgrounds.  However, by the conclusion of the orientation, they need to share a common base of knowledge in order to work effectively as a team.  An additional consideration is the time and resources available to the utility to provide tailored instruction and content to each new learner.  As such, I recommend a concept-related sequencing approach (Posner and Strike, 1976) that begins with (1) general knowledge related to the utility profile (e.g., service area, number and type of customers, annual revenues, etc.), then progresses to (2) regulations and procedures governing the utility and its board, before then engaging in (3) more in-depth study of the individual service/s that the utility offers and the staff affiliated with these services, and ultimately (4) future projections and planning scenarios.  Board members should be provided the opportunity to progress through the first two concepts at their own pace, to allow for differences in learner experience levels, but should not progress to concepts three and beyond until they have demonstrated mastery of this essential base of knowledge.  This mastery learning methodology has long been shown to have powerful impacts upon student outcomes (VanLehn, 2011; Winget & Persky, 2022).  Per Winget & Persky (2022), mastery learning approaches such as what I am recommending here create "...a motivational environment, offers regular opportunities for retrieval practice, and focuses on feedback."

Content should be delivered in an asynchronous blended learning environment.  Blended learning environments, which combine online and face-to-face instruction, have been shown to be more effective than face-to-face or online instruction alone, offering both better learning outcomes as well as higher student satisfaction (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Graham, 2013).  Quality content that is developed with collaboration between subject matter experts and instructional designers can be packaged, digitized, and reused not only across multiple learners, but even across multiple utilities.  Some good examples of such content are the governance workshops delivered by Steve VanderMeer at the national APPA conferences and the APPA Governing for Excellence handbook and on-demand trainings on a wide variety of topics.  Trainings such as these should be incorporated into individual board member curriculum whenever possible.  Even with regard to the training content related to the specific utilities, a solid online on-demand presentation followed up by a brief meeting with relevant utility professionals offers both an efficient and personalized approach that helps maximize learning while making effective use of utility staff's time and allowing for greater learner flexibility (Graham, 2013).   

Development

In this section, we begin to consider assessment strategies for our utility board orientation curriculum.  Voters or local elected leaders will most often provide the ultimate assessment of whether these board members have performed their duties satisfactorily.  However, there are steps that we can take throughout the orientation process to help ensure that board members are as prepared as possible.  Previously, I noted that the the primary domains of learning under consideration are Intellectual Skills, Verbal Information, and Attitude.  Within those domains, I created both cognitive and affective learning objectives.  

For the cognitive objectives, I recommended a concept-related sequencing approach and suggested that learners should demonstrate mastery of the first two concepts before progressing to the others.  Mastery of these concepts could be demonstrated in a variety of simple formative assessments, such as completion of short answer, matching, and/or multiple choice questions.  Learners could be provided with multiple attempts and a support contact could be designated if they are having difficulty progressing through these initial concepts (Winget & Persky, 2022).  For the remaining, more advanced concepts, assessment becomes more challenging and learners will likely crave the "on-the-job" learning of getting started with their board service over further assessment.  One suggested intermediary step between completing orientation and active participation on the board is exposure to a series of local case studies.  Good examples of such case studies (e.g., the contentious siting of a new generation facility in the community or consideration of time-of-use rates) could be identified by utility staff, leadership, or existing board members.  The new member could be provided with a brief of the issue, some background material, and transcripts, minutes, or a recording of the meeting where such a decision was made (access to such records should not be difficult given that many of these meetings fall within public records laws).  The learner could review the case study, then explain to a utility staff or fellow board member mentor why they think the board acted in the way it did as well as things it could have done differently.  Such an exercise would provide learners with real life examples of the sorts of issues they will be encountering, opportunities to see their fellow board members and staff in action (including how meetings are run), and a chance to apply what they've been learning in their orientation in a "practice space" before they are required to begin doing so in a public meeting space.  It also offers an opportunity for trainers to provide continued formative assessment to the learners before they are thrust into the official board environment.  Such feedback can be invaluable to learner success in both intellectual and attitudinal domains, communicating to them that they are being taken seriously and that their work is valued (Bain, 2012; Gooblar, 2019).  

With regard to the affective objectives, learners could again be provided with access to real or theoretical case studies, this time paired with open-ended questions and self-assessment asking how they would respond to a similar situation and their rationale.  While I believe strongly that new board members should be partnered with experienced mentors wherever possible, these mentors may need to be staff in some instances rather than fellow board members.  In Florida, for instance, open meetings "sunshine" laws prevent board members from discussing board issues outside of publicly-noticed meetings.    

Implementation

In this section, I will elaborate on my proposed instructional delivery methods and justifications.  As alluded to above, there are several factors that need to be considered when choosing delivery methods.  Some of these factors include: 

• The limited window of time between selection for service on a board and the expectation that the new board member will begin their service.

• Providing learners access to relevant utility staff and leadership while also considering demands upon everyone's time.

• The significantly varying time and resources available to utilities to develop sound orientation curriculum.

• Allowing learners to proceed through the material at their own pace.

• Providing separate learning environments for each learner in locales where open meetings laws prevent their collaboration in non-publicly-noticed meetings.

Given these constraints, I have recommended that the four concepts that are being covered in the cognitive portion of the orientation curriculum be delivered in an asynchronous hybrid format.  The first two concepts can be delivered lecture-style entirely online, combined with supplemental material and practice activities, using a combination of locally generated content (that which relates to the specific utility) and content generated either locally or by subject matter experts such as the APPA or Hometown Connections (that which relates to larger utility governance issues).  Active learning practices, utilizing either online or printed material, should be employed to help overcome the learner passivity sometimes associated with the lecture approach (Freeman et al., 2014; Morrison, 2019; Prince, 2004).  Additionally, local utility staff can be made available to answer questions arising from this material and to implement assessments to assure that the learner has attained mastery before proceeding.  

As we progress beyond the first two concepts and also approach the affective portion of the curriculum, I have suggested that the content will rely more heavily upon face-to-face interaction, since the content will be both more complex and more utility-specific.  In order to save time for utility staff, however, simple online presentations with voice-overs can be created for reuse.  This flipped classroom model allows for presentations to be reviewed on the learner's own time and followed up by face-time with utility staff, both for more specific, up-to-date discussions and answering questions, role-plays, case studies, and hopefully, facility tours.  These online presentations are an important innovation given that the same content will need to be delivered, often separately, to each new member of the board.  Further, this flipped classroom model can also be expected to deliver improved learning outcomes (Baepler et al., 2014).  Since the recommended assessments for this portion of the curriculum are more open-ended, they will need to be reviewed by experienced staff and/or utility leadership; these additional assessment responsibilities can be more easily taken on, however, due to the decreased workload associated with less lecture-time. 

Evaluation

As noted by Ritzhaupt (2014), "evaluation sits at the center of the ADDIE model, and it provides feedback to all stages of the process to continually improve our instructional design."  In this section, I consider the formative, summative, and confirmative components of evaluation and how they can relate to improvement of our orientation curriculum over time.  Given the wide variety of sizes and in-house resources of municipal utilities, it is far from a given that professional instructional designers will be readily available.  As such, the primary stakeholders available for the evaluation process include utility staff (serving as instructors as well as subject matter experts), board members (learners), and in some cases, the local elected leaders (clients) who select these board members.  Since evaluation is an ongoing, never-ending process in the pursuit of training excellence, I recommend that a committee be engaged in the work of regularly evaluating and revising the utility's orientation curriculum.  This committee can be comprised of the stakeholders described above.  

Formative evaluation of the orientation process and curriculum can take place as each new member of the board is being oriented and will be informed by learner performance on the assessments and observations of the trainers involved in their orientation.  For instance, are students accomplishing the orientation's learning objectives?  If not, what are the barriers and what changes need to be made?  Summative evaluation of the orientation process can involve developing new learning objectives for the curriculum as well as revising existing objectives and the related instructional materials and methods over time.  This summative evaluation should be undertaken immediately after each new board member completes their orientation and will be informed by learner satisfaction, observations of learner behaviors and attitudes "on the job," as well as the time and cost efficiency of delivering the curriculum.  Lastly, confirmative evaluation is a longer-term prospect that will consider changing conditions in the utility industry and how those changes affect orientation needs.  It should also take into account the experience and attitudes of learners at various stages of board service (Bain, 2012; Gooblar, 2019).  So, not only the newly-oriented board member (E.g., "How useful did I find the curriculum?"), but also those who have served for some time (E.g., "In hindsight, what do I wish I would have learned from my board orientation that I didn't?") (Ritzhaupt, 2014).

References

• Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78, 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006 

• Bain, K. (2012). What the best college students do. The Belknap Press Of Harvard University Press.

• Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 

• Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. Holt, Rinehart And Winston.

• Garrison, D. Randy., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001

• Gooblar, D. (2019). The missing course : everything they never taught you about college teaching. Harvard University Press.

• Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.

• Morrison, G. R. (2019). Designing Effective Instruction. Wiley.

• Posner, G. J., & Strike, K. A. (1976). A Categorization Scheme for Principles of Sequencing Content. Review of Educational Research, 46(4), 665–690. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543046004665 

• Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x 

• Ritzhaupt, Albert D. (2014). ADDIE Explained – An Open Educational Resource for the Educational Technology Community. Aritzhaupt.com. http://www.aritzhaupt.com/addie_explained/ 

• VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.611369

• Winget, M., & Persky, A. M. (2022). A practical review of mastery learning. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 86(10), 8906. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8906