Content Portfolio Advisory Group


Backgrou​​nd

There are more opportunities to respond to member/customer needs, wants, and expectations than there are resources to meet those expectations.  Given the need for resources, AIHA should not directly duplicate the services of other organizations.  Focus is important. Providing mediocre or low-quality programs in many areas is inferior to providing higher quality programs in response to a set of focused interests.

Purp​ose

The Content Portfolio Advisory Group (CPAG) provides input and advice on the AIHA board and staff regarding the association’s body of content on industrial hygiene and occupational and environmental health and safety. Content may include documents, articles, white papers, fact sheets, professional development courses (PDCs), conference programs, etc. In this role, CPAG

  • Provides guidance on the co​ntent development agenda for AIHA

  • Suggests topics for the AIHA Guideline Foundation’s research agenda
  • Monitors the industry landscape to identify emerging topics on which new content may be needed
  • Reviews proposals for new content development initiatives
  • Provide recommendations on funding requests for new content development
  • Reviews existing content and ​makes product lifecycle recommendations

Structu​re

CPAG is comprised of six members representing a cross-section of the AIHA membership. Each member serves a three-year term. Terms are staggered so that two members rotate off and are replaced with two new members each year. Terms commence and end at the CPAG meeting at AIHce. Each year, the AIHA Executive Committee selects a Vice Chair from among those committee members entering their second year of service. The Vice Chair becomes the Chair in their third year. A liaison from the AIHA board also participates in CPAG meetings but is not an official member of the group.

Selection and ​Qualifications

The process of selecting new CPAG members begins with an open call for applications to the AIHA membership. Applications are reviewed and selections made by the AIHA Executive Committee with guidance from the CPAG chair and AIHA staff. Selections are made to ensure that the committee maintains as broad a diversity of representation as is reasonably possible. 

Committee members must be current and active members of AIHA and are selected to provide a balanced representation of:

  • Industry sectors

  • Early, mid and late-career professionals
  • Involvement in various AIHA volunteer groups
  • Areas of professio​nal practice and specialty

Committee members should:

  • Demonstrate solid general leadership skills and the ability to be thoughtful, deliberative, and decisive

  • Work collaboratively in a group setting
  • Professionally handle differences of opinion with peers
  • Speak “as with one voice,” supporting decisions once made 
  • Represent the profession as whole and not just one practice area or specialty 
  • Think both long term and strategically as well as short-term and tactically
  • Review applications in a fair, consistent, defensible, and transparent manner
  • Allow for, and define, adequate (not too long, not too short) time for analysis and decisions
  • Exercise sound business judgment when making decisions. Consider needs of target audience, pricing, marketing/promotion, content, education mode (e.g., in-person vs online).
  • Remember, anecdotal member interest, Board member beliefs, and volunteer passion SHOULD NOT be the main drivers for product salvation o​r development.

Responsib​ilities

CPAG members are expected to attend in-person meetings at Leadership Workshop (for which AIHA will cover the cost) and AIHce (for which CPAG members will cover their own costs), as well as participate in periodic conference calls throughout the year.   

Guiding Pr​inciples

  • Communication. How we communicate the process, and its evolution, to volunteers, staff, AIHA Board and members repeatedly and ongoing is critical to success of the initiative. 

  • Commitment to transparency. We agree to manage in-person communications via phone calls, not emails (so a conversation can occur) by a CPAG member to the volunteer/subject matter expert champions of results of proposal review.  The first moment of truth may occur when a new-product proposal receives a no-go/RED light decision. Does the volunteer/SME champion understand and respect the metrics that were used to evaluate potential success? Does he or she feel heard and respected along the way? What does he or she say to other volunteers/SMEs/staff members about the CPAG process? Careful treatment of volunteer/SME champion will have a big impact on the acceptance of this process.
  • No money/no mission.  CPAG needs to pay attention to the investment and make conscious decisions regarding developing a product that does not generate revenue or may not generate a profit. AIHA’s biggest competitor is the internet and the belief that all the information anyone needs can be found in a few clicks, usually at no cost.  AIHA needs to offer quality, exceptional products.  AIHA cannot afford to produce mediocre, unpopular, irrelevant products that drain resources.
  • Multiple Constituents.  AIHA serves multiple constituents – members, volunteers, vendors, advertisers, other customers.  Products are anything AIHA creates and distributes free or for a fee.  AIHA products do not include PDCs (AIHA does not own the content and hence they are not subject to CPAG review) as new or legacy products.  AIHA products do include AIHce on-demand and archived webinars; hence these are subject to CPAG review as legacy products.
  • Board Role and Transparency.  The AIHA Board should be regularly updated on CPAG progress and informed of product go/no go decisions and rationale behind them but not get involved at micro-level.  The Board should not ignore/counter the decisions of the CPAG at final ​stage, but Directors should be encouraged to get involved early on if they have a passion for or expertise in the subject matter.  The Board will have access to monthly CPAG updates/tracking reports to encourage and foster engagement and ensure cross-discipline communication.  New products must have CEO support before being brought to the Board for final approval.

Projec​t Evaluation Process

  • Stage 1 Submittal. The individual or group submittal (with assigned designated “champion” will complete an on-line form that includes clear, concise explanations of requested fields.  This process will be communicated to the broader AIHA community regularly and repeatedly to ensure transparency of process.

  • AIHA Staff Point-of-Contact.  A designated staff member will interface with the volunteer/SME champion regarding a potential project proposal.  This person will have the authority and knowledge to assign an appropriate staff person, if needed, to work with the volunteer/SME champion to develop/guide the initial proposal.  This process will be completed within 5 business days of the initial posting to the portal by the volunteer/SME champion.  The goal is to instill a sense of shared ownership of the proposed product.
  • Stage 1 Review.  CPAG strives for a turn-around time of 1 month or less for Stage 1 Review, with opportunity for discussion at one CPAG monthly conference call/meeting.  CPAG decides, given what they know AT THAT TIME and what is provided in the project proposal, to move the product forward or stop it.  If CPAG gives green light at Stage 1, proposal is returned to staff and volunteer/SME champion for Stage 2 work -- further development of budget and timeline.
  • Stage 2 Submittal and Review.  The individual then completes a second on-line form and submits to CPAG, which strives for a turn-around time of 1 month or less.  
  • AIHA Board Review/Approval.  Final approval rests with the Board. It is envisioned that this step will be completed quickly given the role of CPAG.  NOTE: Contingent on funding requirements, the submitter may need to wait until monies are approved before initiating work and depending on where the organization is on its budget cycle.
  • Product Proposal Tracking Portal.   An online tracking tool will be developed for submittals and to record submittals and CPAG review dates and scoring outcomes.  The potential project, milestones/gates and outcomes/progress will be recorded and viewable on the product proposal tracking portal, so that staff, CPAG and the Board are aware of pending projects and their progress.  This tracking document/portal will be made available behind the member firewall on the CPAG SharePoint web page.
  • Process improvement/feedback loop.  There will be a mechanism in place to capture and respond to process concerns and help submitters and reviewers to navigate the system. Over time, staff will survey submitters to as​sess efficacy of the system and develop an FAQ document to capture questions and concerns learned during the process.​​

​​​​​