Interpretive Planning

A few weeks ago, I offered five principles for interpretive planning. I’ve had some good conversations about those and the implications of each. So I thought I might look at each one in a little more depth here over the next few weeks and give some practical tips. The first one was:

Listen at Multiple Levels

Yesterday, I had someone say to me, “but what if the planner isn’t right?” My response was that the planner should facilitate the process and offer opinions based on their experience, but ultimately, decisions belong to the client. One of the biggest complaints I hear about consultants is “they don’t listen.” The client is telling them what they want, and instead of listening and helping improve on the client’s ideas, the consulting planner simply overrides the client’s desires and then bullies the client into submission. The excuse I hear from planners is that “the client doesn’t know what they’re talking about – I have all the experience so I have all the answers and they should listen to me.” But the client is the one who has to live with the plan, not the consultant.  To me, that smacks of an ego issue, and does not represent interpretive planning at its best.

Before going further, I should state that I’m going to refer to clients and consultants in this article, but you can interchange those words with other more appropriate ones if you’re working totally in-house (i.e., clients may be “the boss” and “consultant” may be “agency designated planner.”

A good planner must practice reflective (or active) listening. Hear what your client is saying. Be patient – sometimes it takes a while for a client to articulate his or her thoughts. Being a good facilitator will help you draw out the information you need to move the process along and create a successful plan that works for your client. Remember it doesn’t have to work for you, it has to work for your client.

The “multiple levels” piece of the principle suggests that sometimes people don’t always say what they mean. Studying human psychology and behavior can be a huge help in the planning process. If you haven’t had coursework in these areas, read some of the wealth of research going on these days about body language and communication. Get good at reading faces and knowing when to probe a little deeper to get to the real intent of someone’s comments. Internal politics can often be at play – you’ll know this is the case when someone nods their head in agreement during the meeting only to pull you aside in the hallway later to share something quietly. That person is hoping that you’ll act as his or her voice at the table so he or she won’t have to reveal true thoughts.

The only problem with that is that you cannot reasonably represent a single voice, even if you completely agree with it. As the planner, you must listen to all the voices and determine how to help the client achieve success, even given all the background politics. Sometimes this means sitting down with the client and having a frank discussion about the different power struggles that seem to be going on. Understanding who represents the power, the authority, and the influence in an organization requires that you be good at picking up on what is said and what is not said. Though you may serve as a calming influence, it is unlikely that you will be able to solve all the internal political strife of the organization with a single planning project. Still, you must understand it and be willing to flex as needed to get the job at hand done.

So listen. Sometimes it’s hard to stop talking long enough to listen, but it’s a critical component of a successful planning process. Practice the following:

1. Wait at least 15 seconds before responding to a question to see if the person needs to rephrase it. Also wait at least 15 seconds after asking a question before jumping in to answer it yourself. Give people time to process information.

2. Never interrupt someone else while he or she is speaking. Do not attempt to finish the sentence yourself or overtalk as they finish the sentence. If you have a chronic talker who can’t seem to stop, get good at jumping in during their pause for breath, but make sure you honor their comment while moving the process along.

3. Watch body language and facial expressions. There is an entire body of research on this phenomenon which spurred the recent TV program “Lie to Me.” It’s a fascinating study in human behavior and it works. Is it possible to misinterpret body language? Of course it is, just as it’s possible to misinterpret something someone says, a tone of voice over the phone, or the written word. But the more you practice, the better you’ll get at picking up subtle cues.

4. Study the culture of the agency (this also goes for the culture of the country you’re working in). Know what specific terminology means so that you can gauge the reactions you’re getting. It’s easy to make a mistake in another country just by not understanding the cultural differences, but it’s just as easy when you’re working with a specific agency in your own country, especially with older organizations that have a well-defined corporate culture.

5. Practice reflective or active listening. Make it clear that you’re paying attention (not gazing off into space or working on something else while someone is talking to you), then rephrase what you heard and repeat it back to make sure you’re hearing accurately what was meant. “So if I understand what you’re saying, . . . ” is a good phrase to add to your toolbox. “Can you clarify that for me?” and “So to restate that . .(restate what was said). . . . would that be an accurate reflection of what you said?” are also good.

6. Remember Abraham Lincoln’s philosophy if people think your quieter approach to listening rather than talking is unusual: “I’d rather keep my mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” You don’t have all the answers – it’s a hard lesson sometimes, but it couldn’t be more true when it comes to planning.

I was recently sent an example of mission, vision, and goals (aims) from an organization for a quick makeover. As I read through them, however, I felt like they were pretty solid as they were. So I’m sharing them here as an example of something that seems to work well without a lot more tweaking.

Point being that my dad was right – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Now the caveat is that I don’t personally have knowledge of the operations of this site, so it is possible that the stated mission/goals don’t fully represent what is actually taking place (in which case, maybe it is time to reflect more thoughtfully on these pieces).

Here’s how they were submitted to me. Again, the name of the organization has been deleted.

MISSION
XXX  is dedicated to the conservation of wildlife and other natural resources.

VISION
Living in balance with nature.

Aims (GOALS)

In pursuit of this vision we aim to:

• Conserve species and their habitats, locally and globally.

• Further understanding and inspire care for the natural world.

• Share our knowledge including results from scientific studies.

• Understand our impacts and improve our environmental performance.

• Invest in individuals and communities.

From here, I would begin to strategize specific objectives in a logic model format that would help me assess whether my site is actually accomplishing the goals that support its mission. I might find that the objectives are where I make a stronger tie to the mission statement for some of these goals such as the one that suggests we “invest in individuals and communities.”

But let’s just say that we wanted to tweak this just a bit to better communicate with our constituents. It may be just a matter of looking at the goals and identifying that one of them appears to be somewhat redundant with the mission. So I might refine this to look like this:

MISSION
XXX  inspires stewardship of our natural world.

VISION
Living in balance with nature.

Aims (GOALS)

In pursuit of this vision our goals are to:

• Conserve species and their habitats, locally and globally.

• Share results from scientific studies.

• Improve the center’s environmental performance.

• Help individuals and communities improve their environmental performance.

These small changes clarify some of the statements and allow a more concise approach. It’s not really saying that the organization is going to do anything differently, but it states what they are doing a little more clearly. Keeping things simple usually helps an organization better communicate what it is doing and that’s really the purpose of having a mission statement.

Please feel free to submit your mission statement for a makeover if you feel your mission misses the mark.

The phone conversation was fairly typical. A grass-roots community organization began a 501(c)3 to create a local nature center, using a site provided by the city. After several years of providing programming for the community, the organization approached the city about taking over responsibility for the operations of the center, including staffing, facilities, site development, and budget. The city, now in charge of a nature center, went to work and now the 501(c)3 feels disenfranchised. What’s the next step?

A partnership is a tricky thing to manage, which is not news to anyone who is involved in one. Here’s the trick – everyone must win (a reflection of the fifth principle of interpretive planning). A partnership is not about one partner deciding what is best or what they need and then dragging the other partner along for the ride. A partnership must involve all partners creating a common vision and a plan that will drive decision-making in the best interest of the resource and the organizations (or individuals) involved.

If you find yourself in a partnership position, sit down with your partners and find out why they want to be in a partnership. If there’s not something in it for everyone, there’s no reason to maintain that partnership. If the partnership relationship is already contentious for any reason, call in a skilled facilitator from outside each organization who can help direct a conversational process that will result in common vision and goals.

Ideally, the process will yield a plan that does not “belong” to any one partner, but is seen as the common plan for the site’s operation and is approved by all partners, with responsibility for achieving specific output objectives assigned to specific partners as appropriate and agreed upon.

Such a plan keeps everyone on track with a full understanding of the ultimate goal, instead of having partners treading on each other’s turf and becoming redundant or dysfunctional. Consider the site as a wagon, with the partners serving as the horses that pull that wagon, providing the power for forward momentum. If the horses begin pulling in different directions, the wagon goes nowhere. If they step all over each other, eventually one or more of the horses will suffer severe damage and again, the wagon’s progress is halted.

Partners can be a pleasure and in some cases, the only way to keep an operation alive and well. Make it your job to keep the partnership healthy – if everyone involved would hold that thought, you’d be amazed at how powerful your partnership can be.

Thankfully, the holidays are over. It took fewer than three days for me to break every resolution I made, so I’m glad I didn’t make any of them public. But even as I was breaking them, I was vindicating myself. After all, tomorrow is another day. Moderation in all things. Rules are made to be broken. I can rationalize with the best of them. But I’d like to think I’m not just rationalizing, I’m being flexible. Being weak-willed is a flaw, being flexible is a positive attribute. Right?

This past month, I had the pleasure of spending some time with Dominic Cardea (former chief of interpretation at Haleakala National Park) while teaching an interpretive planning class in Hawai’i. Many things Dominic said that week struck me as downright brilliant (see, I was listening, Dom), but there was one quote in particular that I really appreciated. We were talking about the need for flexibility, particularly as it relates to planning and managing interpretive sites. “Semper Gumby,” Dominic said, “Always be flexible.”

Turns out Semper Gumby is the unofficial motto of the US Marine Corps, but I’m convinced it should be the official motto for interpretive planning. The process of planning should reflect variables such as time, place, people and purpose – why are you doing the plan, who is it for and who is involved in the process, how much time and money can you devote to the process, where is it taking place? It should also reflect those 5 Ms of management, markets, message, mechanics and media. There’s a lot to consider and it’s rare to have the perfect parameters for a flawless process or product. As much as we’d like to work in a perfect world, it rarely happens. Staying flexible will help you, as a planner, keep your head about you and roll with whatever gets handed to you to work with.

Many, many years ago, when I was first starting my career as a consulting planner, I got into a fierce argument with my client. I was sure I was I right, to the point of refusing to budge on the point. I had to make sure the client knew I was right. The whole thing ended up with the client in tears and me feeling righteous on the one hand and miserable on the other. I had “won,” but at what expense? (And for the record, I’ve never made any other client cry since then.)

Memories of this experience are partially what prompted Principle #5 (see blog of December 31, 2009). There is no winner if everybody doesn’t win. Very often, I see people in interpretive planning classes or out there in the real world working on projects who refuse to let go of an idea or an approach. Ultimately, their rigidity makes it impossible to achieve success.

So “Semper Gumby” folks. Life’s too short to insist on being right. Look for ways to help everyone become a winner. You’ll be a better planner for it, and maybe a better person.

Over 50 years ago, Freeman Tilden wrote “Interpreting Our Heritage” in which he described six principles of interpretation. Those principles still ring true, so much so that they are consistently quoted as what makes interpretation different than ordinary communication. More recently, Ted Cable and Larry Beck updated those principles and added to them, giving more definition to what makes interpretation different than information giving. The work of these good folks has been adapted and massaged over the years as different authors and agencies give their own spin on the essential components of interpretation, but they all pretty much come back to the same universal truths that Tilden described even though the words or acronyms used may be slightly different.

That got me to thinking about interpretive planning (which is pretty much really all I do anyway, according to some folks). Although there have been various descriptions of interpretive planning processes, there has not been a set of principles described that govern the process of planning interpretation as Tilden and others have provided for the act of interpretation itself. And that is what I am asked most frequently – as in “yes, I understand the steps, but HOW do I do them? And how do I do them successfully?” In “Interpretive Planning: the 5-M Model for Successful Planning Projects” I offered a definition for interpretive planning, a process, and a model, but no succinct principles. In my view, principles should be consistent and easy to remember, if they are to be useful.

So, in the middle of the night one night, after getting that question again during an interpretive planning course, it came to me. It seems that’s when most good ideas come to me, which I why I actually keep a pad of paper and pen next to my bed. This time, I thought about what makes a successful process that ultimately leads to great results. While these principles may undergo some minor wordsmithing, I think they give some reasonable sideboards for any interpretive planning process, regardless of the steps or model that are followed. So, here, possibly for the first time, are Principles of Interpretive Planning (©Lisa Brochu, 2009).

1. Listen at multiple levels.

There will be many opinions about what the results of the process should be, but the best planning process will listen to everyone’s ideas before jumping to a conclusion. The successful planner must listen to key stakeholders surrounding the project (donors, managers, interpreters, etc.) as well as the audiences that will be targeted. In some cases, it may be necessary to listen to what it being said as well as what is not being said to avoid allowing the loudest voice to dictate the end result. Sometimes the people involved in the process may not voice all their concerns, so the planner must become adept at listening to “subtext” and body language as well as the words being spoken.

2. Pay attention to every detail, using all your senses.

Sometimes the best information comes from personal observation of a situation, noting how people move through a site or react to a particular experience. Listen for intrusive sounds that may need to be overcome and look at wear patterns on the ground. Notice how smells or blowing breezes may add to or detract from an experience. All of the senses can be used in determining just the right media for any situation.

3. Nothing exists in isolation.

Planning requires consideration of all known factors. One sign or one publication is usually only one part of a much larger picture and as such, must relate to everything else that is contributing to the message. Successful interpretation relies on a combination of techniques but determining which technique is best means understanding the message, the environment, the audience, and management objectives to make the best choices. When you begin to ask questions about what makes the most sense in a given situation, it is likely to lead to more questions, but asking and answering those questions thoughtfully and appropriately is the purpose of the planning process.

4. Every project is different, so every process is unique.

Many people are tempted to approach interpretive planning as a recipe that yields consistent results because the ingredients should be the same at each location (take a natural area, add one trail, two brochures, a guided tour and you’re done). Unfortunately, there is no recipe for successful interpretation that will communicate a unique message to a specific audience. The mix of media, message, and audience to achieve specific objectives will likely be different for different circumstances. The planning team will likely be different also with different skill sets and background knowledge. The available budget may vary considerably from project to project. Consequently, the process by which the planning team approaches the project will need to be different to accommodate all the unique factors involved in any specific project. There is no one right way to go about the process or develop the appropriate products.

5. Everybody at the table must be a winner, but the ultimate winner must be the resource.

Everyone who participates in an interpretive planning process has an interest in seeing the project succeed, but when multiple partners or stakeholders are involved, one individual’s interests cannot take precedence over the others, especially if that interest compromises the integrity of the resource in any way. The planner’s responsibility is to find ways in which everyone in the process can benefit, even if each individual does not always get exactly what he or she wants. The ultimate success of the process should be measured in continued support and protection of the resource, whatever that may be, in support of the agency’s mission.

I’m in Hawai’i on vacation during December – truly one of the great experiences a person living in landlocked, snowy Colorado can have. And my husband and I are having a wonderful time, snorkeling and exploring, catching up with old friends and making new ones. But it’s hard to put the planner hat aside and just be a vacationer. I’ve had three experiences in rapid succession that have me wondering how interpretive planners can devise ethical experiences, when the ethics of those experiences may be fairly complicated.

Scenario #1: At Haleakala National Park (Maui), I listened as both the Chief Interpreter and the Park Superintendent, neither of whom are native Hawaiians, expressed a desire to have visitors be more respectful of the local culture during their visit to this sacred place. Haleakala is significant for so many reasons, but to fully understand it, you must know that at one time access to the summit and the “crater” (actually an erosional feature, not a crater, I was told many times) was limited and only granted by the ali’i (local chiefs) for special reasons. When the National Park Service took over the protection of the mountain, they opened access to the summit with a road and trails through the erosional feature. Camping is also permitted. The summit is home to several endangered plants and animals, all of which can be further endangered by careless human action, of course. The interesting comment that was made by an NPS employee was “Maybe we should put up a sign that says, if you’re a decent human being, you won’t go past this point (on the summit/crater trail)” because doing so would impact the endangered species as well as infringing on the sacred places of the native Hawaiian people. My immediate thought was why doesn’t NPS simply deny access except by permit – the local kupuna council (modern-day equivalent of the ali’i chiefs in many respects) could advise on whether cultural activities were appropriate for permit and certainly NPS biologists could advise on any activities that might negatively impact or provide critical information about endangered species. This would mirror the ancient Hawaiian relationship to the land and it seems like a win for everyone, as visitors finally begin to comprehend and relate to the significance of this special place (which they can still view from the summit visitor center), cultural infringement is halted, a partnership with a local council is strengthened, and a fragile ecosystem is protected. NPS long ago shut down access to a biological reserve on the mountain – why can’t they take the same action for a cultural reserve? From a resource protection standpoint and an ethical standpoint, it seems the “right” thing to do.

Scenario #2 -  One of my favorite activities is whale watching. Every chance I get I’m on a boat and I’ve watched whales all over the world. For the most part, the whales seem unconcerned about the boats as long as the Marine Mammal Protection Act guidelines are observed (not approaching within 100 yards, allowing whales to move freely past the boat, etc.). In Hawaiian waters, we have the opportunity to watch humpback whales in December, as they go about their winter business of courtship, mating, and tending young calves. Seems a little voyeuristic, granted, but it’s a spectacular display that’s hard to resist. Also hard to resist are the spinner dolphins. Almost every whale watch/snorkel boat operator on the island provides the opportunity to see spinner dolphins as they frequent both open and coastal waters, and most allow their passengers to jump in the water to snorkel at various points along the trip. Whether they advertise it as an activity or not, the opportunity presents itself occasionally to have an encounter with spinner dolphins since the bays they frequent as resting spaces are the same places people find enjoyable for snorkeling. And in spite of warnings about approaching dolphins (the Marine Mammal Protection Act again), a few companies advertise dolphin encounters as a guaranteed activity. Here’s the dilemma. Dolphins don’t read, and they are innately curious, so they will often take the initiative to ride along the wake of a boat or interact with swimmers, even though that may not be in their best interest. I asked a friend on the Big Island his thoughts on promoting this activity (he runs a land-based tour company) and he very quickly, unequivocally, said, “it’s bad.” He quoted some research that has been done on the effect of swimming with wild dolphins.

Being guilty of this particular pleasure on a couple of occasions, I immediately went and checked it out on my own. I found that most research that has been done relates to bottlenose dolphins and while there are similarities between the species, they also have some very different behavioral patterns. Spinners can be tracked in three activity zones during the course of their day – feeding (mostly at night), sleeping (in bays where they are likely to encounter casual snorkelers and boat traffic), and in the transition between those activities (when they are actively showing their namesake spinning behavior and socializing with each other). The times I’ve had the good fortune to be with them, they appeared to be in that transition period, neither sleeping nor feeding. I’m not sure that makes swimming with them “right”, but again, they chose to swim alongside me without me approaching them.

Clearly, there’s a real need for specific research on spinners to determine what the short and long-term effects of human interaction with these incredible animals may be. I’ve always felt that the dolphins are so much faster and more agile than me in the water, that they could choose to go wherever they want while I’m pretty much stuck in one place, relatively speaking. It’s not an easy question to answer. I think about the wildlife experiences I’ve had on ecotours in Kenya, where the animals have not been legally hunted since 1976. They’ve become so accustomed to vehicular traffic that they completely ignore human activity as long as you stay in your vehicle. They eat, sleep, hunt, mate, and interact with other wildlife as though you were on the other side of one of those two-way mirrors. With few exceptions I have witnessed, I would say whales have fallen into that same complacency. I wonder if spinner dolphins, feeling safe from human harassment, would come to that same level of comfort and begin to ignore humans altogether or if their curious nature would cause them to continue to seek out interaction if a human is nearby. And what about the animals in Kenya? There is currently a move to allow hunting of big game again – will the animals who have become so habituated that they ignore humans and vehicles suddenly be open to wholesale slaughter?

These are the questions that kept me up last night. And then I thought about Scenario #3 – I met a young lady on the boat the other day who described her experience swimming with manta rays on a commercial tour. She made such a connection with the magnificent mantas, that when she later saw one being harassed by a swimmer who was not on a tour, she called the authorities and reported the activity. Would she have done so without the guided experience and conservation information she was given earlier? I don’t know.

What I do know is that ethical issues are hard to know what to do with, because this is a complex world and there are almost always more sides to any story than we can imagine. People want to interact with their natural and cultural heritage, and sometimes they want to do so inappropriately. As interpretive planners, we must consider the multiple perspectives involved with the experiences we plan, not because we know the “right” thing, but because understanding and appreciation of our global heritage may be the only hope we have of protecting it. And if we can plan experiences that provide the opportunity to create meaningful connections, maybe that’s the best we can do.

About ten years ago, I visited an “Ocean Center.” It was a modest place with a modest admission price. It consisted of an entry station, a small shop, an outdoor plaza, and one exhibit building devoted to the interpretation of marine mammals. The exhibits were engaging and well-designed and I remembered my experience long after the visit.

I recently had the opportunity to visit the same center. Over the last decade, the facility has expanded. It now includes a large aquarium with tanks large enough to have divers feed the enclosed fish and talk to viewing crowds via an underwater microphone. The plaza area has incorporated several outdoor viewing tanks and the store is about three times as large as it once was. A full restaurant with an ocean view has been added, along with a smaller outdoor cafe and snack stand. The price has expanded also – a one-day ticket is now $25, substantially more than it was ten years ago, even accounting for inflation. New “interactive” exhibits (pushbuttons, flappers and crankers) have been added to the original exhibit building.

Have all these improvements improved the experience? Unfortunately, I would have to answer no. The new exhibits are far less engaging and although I always enjoy a good aquarium, the design of this one is challenging – the signs are too wordy and the lighting is so dim that nothing except the tanks can be seen clearly so the interpretive media accompanying the tanks is useless. There’s definitely more to see now, but the overall experience is no longer something I would recommend to others.

I’ve watched this phenomenon of growth with a simultaneous decline of experience at a number of places over the years, and while there may be valid reasons for expansion at some facilities, I often find that the expansion is done for expansion’s sake rather than to accomplish specific objectives.

One nature center I know was once known as one of the top five nature centers in the country based on the quality of its programming. Admittedly, its buildings, housed in and around an old bathhouse, were in sorry shape. But the programs were world-class and the nature center was an active, thriving, valued part of the local community. After new buildings were built, the focus shifted from building great programs to maintenance of the new structures. Interpreters began staying in their office spaces instead of being outside, talking informally with visitors. And the nature center no longer has the community or agency support it once enjoyed.

I’m not suggesting that every facility should avoid growth. But as you plan for expansion, be sure to consider the facility’s current strengths, and think about the potential that growth has for negatively impacting those strengths. It’s not always possible to predict the future, but think seriously about the implications of proposed changes during the planning process and recognize that bigger isn’t always better . . . not if it causes you to lose those things that made your facility or organization successful enough to warrant growth in the first place.

When my son was about 6, I walked into his room to find him playing “park.” He had taken all his Matchbox cars, plastic dinosaurs, and an assortment of cardboard boxes and put them all together to create the perfect experience. He showed me how people would drive into the park, leave their cars in the carefully placed parking lot, walk into the ticket sales, and enter the visitor center. From there, they would head out into the park and see all the animals as they toured a series of trails. Finally they would exit through the gift shop where they could buy reminders of their excellent day, and happily head home.

As he walked me through the experience, I was amazed at how sophisticated his thinking was. Granted, he’s been dragged through almost every visitor center, museum, zoo, and other attraction we’ve come across since before he was born (I remember facilitating a museum planning project while heavily seven months pregnant with him and barely being able to reach the flipchart). Some of the conversations he’s overhead on the many work trips he’s witnessed have undoubtedly sunk into his subconscious, but what struck me most on that day so long ago, sitting on the floor in his room, was that he had picked up on what may be the single most important point about interpretive planning.

He had created a complete experience, not just a single exhibit or trail or sales area. Everything worked together, and even though it seemed a little unusual to find the “live” dinosaurs grazing next to the zebras in his outdoor exhibit area, the basic premise of his overall plan was sound.

I flash back to that day frequently, because it is a constant reminder that we must think holistically as interpretive planners. The experience doesn’t begin at the door or when we see our first interpreter on site. The experience begins with the idea and decision to go somewhere (even if going somewhere just means heading to a virtual activity on a website). And if we’re really good at our job, the experience doesn’t end when we drive out of the parking lot or put down the mouse. The experience continues with our memories and the thoughtful conversations or actions that take place later, sometimes later that day or maybe later that year. Ideally, we’ve planned an experience that engenders some sort of commitment on behalf of the visitor that may manifest in a variety of ways. Everything that happens in between reinforces the experience and helps communicate the message (theme) that relates to our mission.

The other point I try to remember when I pull on that memory string is that planning should be fun. My son was playing, not working, as he put together that perfect park. I hope you find ways to keep the joy in your interpretive planning process. Even if you’re dealing with somber subject matter, the process doesn’t have to be drudgery. Your product will reflect the energy you put into the process – keep it positive and your end product will be that much more successful.

“We don’t have time to plan, we have significant problems and are too busy trying to do stuff that will solve those problems.” I recently heard a director say those all too common words. I would respectfully submit that if you have significant problems at your site, there’s no better time to sit back, take stock, and be thoughtful about what might be the most cost-effective approach to solving them.

Many of us get caught up in the immediacy of daily challenges that get thrown at us. But if the solution is simply to throw more energy and resources at something that we shouldn’t even be doing in the first place, we aren’t correcting a problem – we’re perpetuating it. And the end result may be putting us out of business.

Planning is not an exercise to be undertaken for the sake of the exercise. Planning is a process that should provide a road map for success, measured by stated objectives. Given the choice of “doing stuff” that may be inappropriate in the long run for all sorts of reasons, or taking a day, a week, or even a few months to assess the situation, determine what you’d like your future to look like, and develop action items that will help that dream become reality . . . would you really choose to take a ready-fire-aim approach that may or may not work and may cost your organization precious financial resources you don’t even have? Really?

To help get you over the hump of feeling like you don’t have time to plan, just take enough time to sit down over a cup of coffee or other favorite beverage and think about what you would like to change if you could. Is your visitation or program attendance sagging? Having trouble retaining members? Need a boost to your operating budget? Staff morale in question? Exhibits or signs dated and disintegrating? Suffering from mission drift? Any of these situations might require a planning process, a thoughtful approach to finding solutions. Putting a cosmetic band-aid on the issue by “doing stuff” might provide some short-term satisfaction but think about the rewards of getting it right for the long-term. Along those lines, be sure the change you identify is really the root of the problem. Sometimes it’s easy to look at an individual situation and miss the bigger issues at hand. Remember that few things occur in isolation – there are almost always contributing factors or related concerns.

Once you know what problem(s) you’re trying to solve, the next step is to figure out what type of planning process you need and who should be involved. Some significant planning sessions can be undertaken in-house or with a hired facilitator in a very focused day or two with follow-up to be determined in an action plan. With more complex situations, a matter of months may be required to gather and analyze information before moving forward. No two situations are exactly alike, so no two solutions will be exactly alike. Talk to an experienced planner to get you started on the right process for your specific situation, and you just might find that not only do you have time to plan, but the time you spend on planning saves you the time you would have spent “doing stuff” you didn’t even need to be doing.

Ever wonder how to have a meeting that people actually want to participate in? It’s not hard, but it helps to keep a few things in mind (in addition to some of the tips shared last week):

1. Set an agenda. Have a reason for the meeting – what do you hope to accomplish and how long will it take? Start on time and finish on time or early if you can. I don’t recommend putting specific times on an agenda other than start and finish because people tend to clock-watch and get nervous if you don’t follow the specified timing. I like the flexibility of saying “in the morning, we’ll cover this and this, and then this afternoon we’ll move on to such and such.” That way, you can flex with the discussion, spending more or less time on each individual item as needed.

2. Invite the right people. Once you know what you’re trying to accomplish, you can determine who needs to be present. Not everyone needs to be at every meeting in an interpretive planning process, but make sure that anyone who is not there and who’s involved in any part of the process gets a copy of the notes from the meeting so you don’t have to have the same meeting over and over when new people are brought into the process. Decision-makers must sign off at every meeting before you continue further into the process. If the decision-maker is not present, be sure to get signed approval of the meeting notes before moving forward. Otherwise, you may spend an unfortunate amount of time and money that will not be approved later in the game.

3. On meeting notes: Be sure to keep them and circulate them after the fact, asking anyone who matters whether anything was misrepresented or left out. Ask for approval of the meeting notes (a signature from the decision-maker will do) so that everyone’s clear on what happened and what was decided. It can be helpful to have an assistant taking notes for you if you are acting as the facilitator to make sure you capture all important comments.

4. If you hit an impasse – let’s say a board member or the park superintendent has one view and someone else has another and they start arguing the fine points or otherwise impede the progress of the meeting – take a break. Taking a break allows tempers to cool and helps you collect your thoughts before bringing the group back together and proceeding.

5. Be ready to change tactics depending on the group dynamic. Sometimes I head into a meeting believing I’m going to ask a certain question or facilitate a particular activity. But the group may or may not be responding or may need to solve a different problem first before we can get on with the interpretive portion of the process. A good facilitator helps the group be successful by reading body language and listening and choosing techniques (sometimes on the fly) that will help the group achieve the meeting objectives instead of bogging them down by insisting on doing things in a more prescribed fashion because that’s what the facilitator is comfortable with.

6. Keep a sense of humor and a sense of perspective about each meeting. Remember you’re in a process, and one meeting does not a process make. But if the majority of your individual meetings are not successful, your overall plan has little to no hope of finding success either. Treat each meeting as its own unique event with its own unique audience, then blend all the results into the overall process. And remember, meetings that people want to be in will go a long way towards getting the results you want.