# data[].attributes.body
Work with (i.e., ID and meet with) the most productive current partnerships to determine why our partnership with them is valuable – now – and whether a National surveilance would be beneficia to them in the future. This may provide insight into how to approach other less productive partnerships.

# data[].attributes.body
Do this in stages. Begin with a questionnaire survey for a larger group and then winnow down the possibilities.

# data[].attributes.body
Develop a base cooperative agreement delineating NWHC's surveillance goals and outlining the services we will be able to provide. Review agreement with individual partners or small groups of partners, assess partner buy-in, and determine whether there are critical partner needs that are being overlooked.

# data[].attributes.body
Listening sessions or structured conversations where we present how we're changing and why, and then hear out our partners about their concerns could also work - but not if we need them to use their resources to participate.

# data[].attributes.body
Pilot with key (DOI) partner(s) to show proof of concept and creating a glide path to full implementation. Identify influencers with the states who also can be test cases. Identify impediments to implementation through workshop.

# data[].attributes.body
Successful current examples, ie. WNS, CWD the costs and benefits.  Work out details of a potential example that would be meaningful either regionally or nationally.

# data[].attributes.body
We need an elevator speech presentation that summarizes our strategy and conclusions.

# data[].attributes.body
Develop a presentation (to be used at workshop or during more individualized partner meetings) that summarizes our work to date with Goal 2.1 group, and that summarizes both benefits and inherent biases/shortcomings of the scanning surveillance that NWHC has historically done. Demonstrate how by pursuing new directions, we can achieve more.

# data[].attributes.body
I think we could provide what we've done so far as a basis for discussion/starting place (different goals for surveillance, cost/benefit analysis - just keep our ranking to ourselves). It is common in these types of workshops to provide background and side-bars, and what we have developed will be useful in defining those.

# data[].attributes.body
Use the "outward facing" stuff in a wildlife health perspective and show how enhanced surveillance can better inform management decisions than uncoordinated presence/absence efforts.  So not trying to just educate, but show why it will better meet management needs. Maybe use outside person too (e.g., Craig Stephens).

# data[].attributes.body
Work with limited number of partners-the ones we know are interested in drivers- USFWS (Sam Gibbs anyway) seems interested in this more than just understanding morbidity and mortality.

# data[].attributes.body
Use it to demonstrate why drivers will help them with the objective of improving wildlife health. I'm not sure why situational awareness is so important to them. I don't know if they get pressure from public, agency to know what something is or whether they just haven't thought that much about there being more we can do with surveillance other than document why things are dying and what new diseases are on the horizon.

# data[].attributes.body
At a minimum move us off simply ‘situational awareness’ and provide an example that can be used as a demonstration project.

# data[].attributes.body
Without an understanding of what is "usual", we will not have the understanding of what are meaningful changes. So some degree of surveillance is needed. Can we use historic and possibly simulated data and test how different surveillance quotas/strategies affect our ability to provide situational awareness?

# data[].attributes.body
I think that we need to maintain some form of general surveillance - could focus on high-priority/larger events (increase to 20-, 50-, or 100-carcass acceptance criteria) or could be based on general surveillance within risk-prioritized nodes - and would like to also roll out a pilot project. I think we can engage and transition partners to new model through cooperative agreements. Perhaps, we can roll out the idea of paying for enhanced services?

# data[].attributes.body
I don't mind if we need to keep some passive surveillance for high priority events. However, I do want to make sure that we choose at least one of the science objectives to move towards.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the minimum objectives are those that have been derived through this team. I don't think we need to make everyone happy, but I don't think that is possible. We probably don't do that now.

# data[].attributes.body
I think we should keep most of them national scope/impact, identification of drivers, collections of somewhat systematic presence/absence data, attempts at evaluating management scenarios, the only reason to change would be if someone convinced us that doing something different would result in better management of diseases

# data[].attributes.body
use our objectives as gold standards for our future efforts. try to bring partners around to our objectives, "weight" them heavily if we have a workshop or conversation with partners regarding future directions. Engage partners with the trade-offs versus benefits (have them add their own perceptions to the graph)

# data[].attributes.body
show how we can meet multiple objectives. Try to lead them to the conclusion that this is what they want.

# data[].attributes.body
NWHC will compare our surveillance objectives with an estimated 'buy in' by our partners. Will the juice be worth the squeeze?

# data[].attributes.body
Ideally, the workshop will identify common objectives and priorities. The opinions expressed should also be weighed against what is practical/feasible. Together they inform but should not dictate our new strategy.

# data[].attributes.body
Weigh our objectives and partners' objectives to identify where we overlap and how many partners we will we be able to engage depending on which idea we choose. Use this process to start making initial decisions; then continue to proactively communicate with partners.

# data[].attributes.body
I think this should be a consent or consultative decision. Consensus would take too long, and I doubt we'd get it because we have too many partners. So we'll hear them out, and weigh what they have to say, but in the end the decision on what we accept for submissions is ours.

# data[].attributes.body
The data collection and analysis should be framed as a means to inform the implementation of our strategic plan and new national surveillance strategy. So, aimed at identifying impediments/barriers to implementation, key influencers, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
Ideally I'd like for this to be a consultative process whereby we consult with partners but make the decision. If there isn't agreement among partners then we use data to understand that the barriers and facilitators to implementation will be.

# data[].attributes.body
Identify impediments to success, and strategize how to overcome them. Decisions regarding which partners might be amenable to start pilot projects with. Information can be used to help "sell" the project if feedback is positive. Determining if partner objectives that are outside the scope of NWHC's objectives can be incorporated without significant loss of resources.

# data[].attributes.body
Unless we are willing and able to 'go it alone' on national surveillance we need partner 'buy in' and that entails identifying and respecting their objectives.

# data[].attributes.body
Given the limited USGS budget (there are RO1 given to PI's that is bigger than the whole Center's budget), I feel that we need partner commitment in order for any one project to be  adequately funded to the degree that is needed.

# data[].attributes.body
Prioritize partners who's objectives align with ours. As a starting point, perhaps this will be enough for us to initiate a surveillance pilot project (i.e., don't need to implement entire project up front).

# data[].attributes.body
My personal opinion would be to prioritize the partners who's objectives most closely align with what we want....but I suppose we need to think carefully about whether HQ sees all partners the same or if certain partners are more key to our success than others.

# data[].attributes.body
We have our mission, goals and objectives laid out in the strategic plan, action plan, etc. So, I believe we should roll this out in phases focusing first on key partners based on political considerations, scope of mandate, likelihood of aligning with our efforts, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
I think we should prioritize partners that most closely align with our objectives and I think this is probably USFWS.  It would be easier to figure out how to make them happy than 50 individual states. I'd love for the partner group to help us figure out what the barriers to implementation are and how we overcome them. I'm not sure what this looks like though.

# data[].attributes.body
I think we should prioritize partners based on who is mostly willing to support us in achieving our objectives. That might be $$$, or personnel, or just positive messaging to other partners.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes. the benefits are perhaps working closely with a smaller group of partners and having a successful demonstration project to point out as evidence of the value of surveillance as opposed to situational awareness. The disadvantrage is it will likely be slower. Possibly others, Davis, SWDS, NE will follow the lead and develop their own regional approach.

# data[].attributes.body
Nodes, regional or disease-centric focus, are a good way to demonstrate the new strategy. Early successes would draw in new partner that can then expand our scope in a stepwise fashion.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes. This is consistent with a pilot approach. Will allow us to work out kinks, identify successes, and potentially build support for broader-scale implementation.

# data[].attributes.body
I think we have to (as far as rolling it out), but I think we need to be clear with ALL our partners that we're doing so. Because there will be partners who aren't included in the initial pilot, but then feel that they can't have their say or won't buy in when we try to expand it.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, I would focus at the regional scale. I think this provides the foundation for showing proof of concept, building political support, and ironing out the "wrinkles".

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, I think we need to start with node/region. The benefits are that trying to figure out what to collect and how useful it is will be easier if we're doing it for a small number of partners. It would potentially allow us more time to figure out what to do with routine submissions (could keep taking them from other regions). A challenge could be that we might not be able to see patterns for drivers with a regional node.

# data[].attributes.body
yeah the Katie and Dan laid out the pros, the cons are that you may end up with a pilot project that no one outside the regional area sees at relevant to their area (even if it is) for some reason or another. If it means putting some partners on hold for a few years we could lose some connections. We don't want to become the Regional Science Center. So I think it is necessary but we have to be careful.

# data[].attributes.body
As long as the objectives of the surveillance results in increased ability to take action I'd be happy. In theory drivers should be more useful than situational awareness but it seems like we know the big drivers of disease (habitat loss, human encroachment, global trade and travel) and haven't been able to take action so stop or slow these factors so I'm not sure it's a panacea but it may be a step in the right direction.

# data[].attributes.body
Identify targeted surveillance projects with partners with immediate needs.  Develop a smaller-than-national scale project where the partner + us both brings objectives to demonstrate how we can do both and how much resources its takes

# data[].attributes.body
1. ID who we are communicating to.  Communication to partners who use the information a different surveillance approach will produce will be different from higher level positions with partners or USGS.

partners (users of information): how does this impact a decision or resource allocation or something else they do on a day to day basis.

administrators: Costs and Benefits

# data[].attributes.body
Ask and get a solid answer for: "what are you using this information for?" aka: as far as we can still connect surveillance activities to management or policy actions. Not so far as to just produce situational awareness or research knoweldge

# data[].attributes.body
My suggestions: create one workshop goal/session to identify a small group to decide/implement the workshop outcomes (where I'm thinking outcomes is compilation/ranking/etc of partner perspectives). This group must include some partners

# data[].attributes.body
Partners. but I'm not really clear what the distinction is

# data[].attributes.body
nothing to add to above