Interpretive Planning

If you clicked on this link hoping to find examples of interpretive plans, you’re probably going to be a little disappointed. I’m not actually posting examples of plans, but I am going to explain why I’m always hesitant to provide someone who is learning how to plan with specific document examples.

It’s pretty simple, really. I strongly believe in principle #4 – Every process will be different because every project is unique. What that translates to in plan documents is that the same table of contents probably won’t work for any two (or two hundred) projects. Interpretive planning that follows a template approach isn’t really planning in my way of thinking. Filling in the blanks is just that and doesn’t require much thought. It also doesn’t help you to assess whether your decisions make sense when tested against the filters of management objectives, budget, staffing, maintenance, and other variables. Cutting and pasting whole sections from other plan documents is never a good idea.

The good news is that without a template, you’re free to approach your project in whatever way makes the most sense, as long as you remember to pay attention to all of the 5-m areas (management, message, markets, mechanics, and media). The bad news is that without a template, there’s very little structure to give you guidance if you’re new at this. And therein lies the problem. I’ve watched people look at plan examples and assume that because a particular approach was used in the example, that all interpretive plans should have that same approach. Nothing could be further from the truth.

One interpretive planning class participant recently brought up how confusing and overwhelming the process can be without specific instructions for how to complete a reasonable plan. I wish there were some way to make it really easy and still have it be effective, but I haven’t figured that out yet. The truth is, planning isn’t always easy. It requires a thoughtful process with consideration of a lot of variables and that’s work, any way you slice it.

Having said all of that, I’m now rethinking the sharing of plan samples a bit. I showed a couple of examples of plans I have worked on to the last planning class and was pleased by the response afterwards. I literally walked the class through the process showing what information I was given to start with and how that was applied throughout the process to result in a document. With the explanation that I could offer in person, I was comfortable with this . . . but I still would not have wanted to simply lay the plans on the table or post them on the website without the opportunity to explain why they included the elements they did and didn’t include other elements that some people might have felt compelled to put in.

One of the reasons we do a hands-on real project during the planning course is to provide the opportunity for one on one coaching so that you can see how your approach to the project might be tweaked for greater effectiveness. Granted, the class project may be very different than your own project waiting for you back at your office, but at least it will get you thinking about process and where to start with things and what questions to ask along the way.

In short, there is no one right way to “do” an interpretive plan. Every project is unique, so every process will be a little different to accommodate the variables. And consequently, each document will be a little different as well. Understanding where to start, how to proceed, what to sift in or out, what and when to test, and how to put all the pieces together takes experience and lots of it. But the only way to get that experience is to start . . . and don’t be afraid to ask questions. It’s the only way to get better. In my role here at NAI, I’m available as a resource to help answer questions to the best of my ability. I’m hoping to experiment with some other ways to share examples with explanations – webinars or other on-line tools – as ways to augment what we do in the class and provide some help for those who can’t make it to a class. In the meantime, please feel free to pick up the phone . . . I’ll look forward to hearing from you.

National Association for Interpretation offers an interpretive planning class five or six times a year – 2010 workshops can be seen at http://interpnet.com/certification/cert_calendar.shtml. The classes last five days and are usually attended by a mix of practicing planning consultants, those who want to be planning consultants, architects, landscape architects, exhibit designers, site managers, academicians, marketing specialists, and agency planners. People attend for all sorts of reasons – some want to be certified as interpretive planners by NAI and the class helps them work towards those requirements. Others simply want the training so that they become better planners or better understand the process so they become better project managers or planning/design team members. Still others are looking for contacts and hope to create working relationships with other people in the class.

Each class is somewhat unpredictable and unique, because each class is held at a different host site and has a different mix of participants. The class format includes morning discussions about planning in general and explores the details of the 5-M Model from Interpretive Planning: the 5-M Model for Successful Planning Projects, available from NAI’s Association Store. In the afternoons, the class breaks into small groups to work on a very real project at the host site. On the final day, each group presents its findings and recommendations. It’s an intense workshop format but provides real skills that can be applied to any project in the future.

Host sites benefit in many ways. The host site selects a project for the class to work on. The projects have included such things as planning an exhibit room at a visitor center, creating a new interpretive entry trail at a nature center, determining the most appropriate adaptive reuse and interpretation of historic structures, suggesting an overall strategy for making a nature reserve more responsive to local community users, and a wide variety of other projects. The host site, in determining the project, must decide the level of information they hope to gain – the larger the project scope, the more conceptual the results will be as class participants have only five days in which to complete and present a draft plan. We have taken this workshop to more than 40 sites in the US, and internationally to Panama, Wales, China, and Mexico.

Because each group in the class works on the same project, the host site will receive four to seven different approaches from which the host site staff can draw ideas to craft a final plan. The host site receives a copy of all materials produced in the class, including a DVD of all the presentations. The host site is also allowed to bring six participants to the workshop. For all that the host site receives, there is a price, however. Host sites must pay a flat rate of $5750. That includes the six seats at the workshop (but not certification application fees for those individuals should they wish to attempt certification), copies of all materials generated, instructor expenses, and workshop materials. The host site must provide a meeting space large enough to provide seating for up to 21 people in a U-shape, either on-site or at a nearby hotel. And finally, the host site must provide background information related to the project (site plans, floor plans, visitation figures, mission/goals, etc. as appropriate for the site and project).

The instructors for the class, myself and Tim Merriman, have a combined 60+ years in the interpretation field, and bring that wealth of experience as operations managers, consulting planners, and authors to the table, allowing participants to ask and receive answers to an astonishing array of questions.

Our schedule is full for 2010, but if you are interested in booking your site  as a host site for 2011, download and complete the host site application form and send it to the NAI office or call me, Lisa Brochu, at 888-900-8283 (toll-free in the USA) or 970-484-8283 (international) for more information and to initiate the process.

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.

I just had an interesting exchange with someone who hadn’t heard of interpretive planning before accidentally landing on this site. He asked about the 5 Ms and what study they came from. The Ms aren’t the result of any academic study but evolved from almost 30 years of planning experience with a variety of interpretive sites that range from federal agencies to local nature centers and everything in between.

The 5-M Model for Successful Planning Projects became the subtitle for my Interpretive Planning book as a simple vehicle to help people remember what they should be considering during any sort of interpretive planning process.

The Ms, concisely put, are Management, Markets, Message, Mechanics, and Media. Oddly enough, I find that a lot of planners fail to look at the management needs of a site to determine how interpretation fits into the bigger picture and what resources are available to support interpretive efforts. Someone recently commented to me that interpretive planners really need to understand the business aspects of the site they’re planning for and I couldn’t agree more.

Many planners focus on message and while that’s certainly a big component of interpretive planning, it cannot be the only thing if you want to be successful (with success being determined by how well you meet specified objectives that support the mission of your organization). Some planners forget to match their products to the market segments that already use the site or are desired publics. The one-size-fits-all approach rarely works well, but it’s a common approach.

Mechanics refers to how everything fits together, from space planning to the flow in and around facilities, from placement of interpretive products to resolution of accessibility issues, from training of staff to additional amenities . . . in short, how the entire experience is designed to enable your audience to have the most positive and memorable exposure to your resource possible. For me, this is where the whole process comes together to create holistic and meaningful experiences that link your audience to the mission of your organization.

Media is usually the first thing that people want to discuss, but it’s the last thing that should be considered. Once you’ve done your homework on the other four Ms, the best media choices become obvious. Unfortunately, many inexperienced planners or people trying to do a planner’s job will leap to media conclusions because they want fun, cool stuff without first considering whether that stuff will actually communicate anything to anyone or will be sustainable given the organization’s staffing, financial, and physical resources. Think about that next time you see a “closed” sign on a visitor center or an “out of order” sign on an exhibit or hear about another out of work interpreter.

For more information on the 5 Ms and the nuances of planning with this model, check out the book or come to an NAI-sponsored planning workshop. You may never look at interpretive products and experiences  the same way again.

Lisa