Strategic planning approaches for modernizing legacy agricultural extension institutions

Introduction

Britain's National Agricultural Advisory Service, launched in 1946 under the Agriculture Act, was one of the earliest unified public extension systems [1] . For decades it delivered soil testing, crop rotation advice, and livestock guidance through county offices. But by the 1990s, privatization and budget pressures had fragmented the system into a patchwork of public, private, and voluntary providers [2] . Many surviving institutions retained structures designed for an era of paper records and face-to-face farm visits. The mismatch between legacy structures and current demands is not unique to Britain. Extension agencies worldwide face pressure to incorporate digital tools, respond to climate variability, and engage diverse farming populations [3] . Strategic planning has been proposed as one steering mechanism, yet evidence linking formal planning to actual institutional modernization remains patchy [4] . This research examined 25 extension institutions across England, Wales, and Scotland to assess which planning elements were most closely linked to modernization progress over a six-year window (2018-2023).

Theoretical Background

The research drew on two bodies of theory. The first was organizational change management, specifically Kotter's eight-step model, which treats strategic vision, coalition building, and short-term wins as preconditions for sustained transformation [5] . The second was the institutional isomorphism framework from DiMaggio and Powell, which predicts that organizations in the same field tend to converge toward similar structures over time through coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures [6] . Together, these lenses suggested that strategic planning would accelerate modernization both by creating internal direction and by aligning institutions with external expectations from funders and peer organizations.

Material and Methods

Material

This research was conducted through the School of Agriculture at the University of Reading, United Kingdom, between May 2023 and February 2024. The University of Reading Ethics Committee granted approval on 22 April 2023 (reference UREC-2023-089). Twenty-five extension institutions were selected through purposive sampling: 16 in England, 5 in Wales, and 4 in Scotland. Institutions were eligible if they had been operating continuously since at least 2017 and maintained publicly accessible annual reports. Of the 25, 14 had adopted a formal strategic plan during the observation period and 11 had not. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 47 senior managers (1-3 per institution). All participants gave written informed consent.

Instrument Development

The modernization index was developed through a threestage process. First, a literature scan identified 28 candidate indicators of institutional modernization in extension contexts [3] . Second, an expert panel of nine extension specialists rated each indicator for relevance and measurability, retaining 16 items grouped into four components: digital infrastructure (5 items), staff capacity building (4 items), governance reform (4 items), and stakeholder engagement (3 items). Third, a pilot application to five institutions outside the sample produced a Cronbach's alpha of 0.83 for the overall index. Each item was scored on a five-point scale and converted to a percentage.

Methods

Institutional documents including strategic plans, annual reports, budget statements, and training logs from 2018 to 2023 were coded against the modernization index. Interview transcripts were coded thematically to capture planning processes and perceived barriers [7] . Modernization trajectories were compared between the two groups (with plan vs. without plan) using repeated-measures analysis and effect sizes. Component-level trends were visualized through stacked area charts. A content analysis of the 14 strategic plans identified the most commonly included planning elements and their association with index gains.

Results

Table 1 shows the mean modernization index scores for institutions with and without strategic plans at the start and end of the observation period. Both groups started at nearly identical baselines in 2018. By 2023, the planned group had gained 37.2 percentage points compared with just 9.5 for the unplanned group, a gap of 28.1 points with a large effect size (d = 1.43). The shaded area between the two lines represents the widening gap over time. The planned group began accelerating noticeably after 2020, which coincided with the period when most institutions completed their first plan cycle and entered implementation. Digital infrastructure was the fastest-growing component, nearly quadrupling from 8.1% to 29.3%. Staff capacity building showed steady but slower growth. Governance reform and stakeholder engagement contributed less to total gains, suggesting these areas may need more deliberate planning attention. www.extensionjournal.com

Discussion

The 28.1-point gap between planned and unplanned institutions by 2023 is striking given the near-identical starting points. This aligns with Kotter's argument that strategic vision provides directional clarity needed to sustain change [5] . The acceleration after 2020 may reflect a common lag: plans take one to two years to become budgeted activities. The dominance of digital infrastructure in the component breakdown suggests technology adoption is the easiest lever to pull, while slower growth in governance and stakeholder engagement confirms that soft institutional changes are harder to plan for [8] . Extension managers should resist equating digitization with modernization and give equal planning weight to all four components.

Practical Applications

Three actionable recommendations emerge. First, institutions without a formal strategic plan should treat adoption as an immediate priority given the large performance gap. Second, plans should include explicit targets for governance reform and stakeholder engagement, not just digital infrastructure. Third, combining top-down strategic direction with bottom-up staff consultation during drafting appears to produce the most balanced modernization profiles.

Conclusion

Legacy extension institutions with formal strategic plans modernized at roughly four times the rate of those without over a six-year period. Digital infrastructure drove the largest gains, but governance and stakeholder engagement lagged. Strategic planning appears to be a practical driver of institutional renewal rather than a bureaucratic formality. Future research should track whether these gains translate into measurable improvements in farmer outcomes and whether similar patterns hold outside the British Isles.

References

1. Garforth C, Angell B, Archer J, Green K. Fragmentation or creative diversity? Options in the provision of land management advisory services. Land Use Policy. 2003;20(4):323-333.
2. Prager K, Thomson K. AKIS and advisory services in the United Kingdom. Report for the AKIS inventory. 2014:1-35.
3. Birner R, Anderson JR. How to make agricultural extension demand-driven? The case of India's agricultural extension policy. IFPRI Discussion Paper. 2007;729:1-38.
4. Klerkx L, Proctor A. Beyond fragmentation and disconnect: Networks for knowledge exchange in the English land management advisory system. Land Use Policy. 2013;30(1):13-24.
5. Kotter JP. Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review. 1995;73(2):59-67.
6. DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review. 1983;48(2):147-160.
7. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. Sage Publications. 2002:305329.
8. Birner R, Davis K. The new extensionist: Roles and capacities to strengthen extension and advisory services. Journal of International Agricultural and www.extensionjournal.com Extension Education. 2015;22(3):7-11.
9. Mintzberg H. The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review. 1994;72(1):107-114.
10. Bryson JM. Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement. John Wiley and Sons. 2018:1-544.
11. Rivera WM, Qamar MK, Crowder LV. Agricultural and rural extension worldwide: Options for institutional reform in the developing countries. FAO Rome. 2001:1-49.
12. Sulaiman VR, Davis K. The new extensionist: Roles, strategies, and capacities to strengthen extension and advisory services. GFRAS Position Paper. 2012:1-20.
13. Christoplos I. Mobilizing the potential of rural and agricultural extension. FAO and Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services. 2010:1-65.
14. Labarthe P, Laurent C. Privatization of agricultural extension services in the EU: Towards a lack of adequate knowledge for small-scale farms? Food Policy. 2013;38:240-252.
15. Leeuwis C. Communication for rural innovation: Rethinking agricultural extension. Blackwell Publishing. 2004:1-412.
16. Spielman DJ, Davis K, Negash M, Ayele G. Rural innovation systems and networks: Findings from a study of Ethiopian smallholders. Agriculture and Human Values. 2011;28(2):195-212.
17. Prager K, Creaney R. Achieving on-farm practice change through facilitated group learning: Evaluating the effectiveness of monitor farms and discussion groups. Journal of Rural Studies. 2017;56:1-11.
18. Ingram J. Are farmers in England equipped to meet the knowledge challenge of sustainable soil management? An analysis of farmer and advisor views. Journal of Environmental Management. 2008;86(1):214-228.
19. Dwyer J, Mills J, Ingram J, et al. Managing environmental land management scheme options: Experiences from advisors. Land Use Policy. 2007;24(1):135-149.
20. Phillipson J, Proctor A, Emery SB, Lowe P. Performing inter-professional expertise in rural advisory networks. Land Use Policy. 2016;54:321-330.
21. Winter M, Lobley M. Is there a future for the small family farm in the UK? Report to the Prince's Countryside Fund. University of Exeter Centre for Rural Policy Research. 2016:1-78.