Interpretive Planning

One of the many ways in which contractors find out about what projects are available is the time-tested “Request for Proposal” or RFP. Generally speaking, an RFP requires the respondent to provide both a technical (process recommendations, samples of work products, etc.) and a cost proposal (sometimes embedded in the technical proposal as a budget or sometimes separated out and submitted in a sealed envelope to be opened after selection is made based on technical qualifications).

There are a number of options for those who are considering the solicitation of proposals from contractors – RFQ can stand for “Request for Qualification” for which the respondent provides only background information and perhaps work samples. It can also stand for “Request for Quotation” for which the respondent provides only a dollar amount for the work (usually used for low-bid awards and NOT recommended for interpretive planning projects).

Any of these options (and a variety of others, such as simple purchase orders) can be mixed and matched to a certain extent depending on the needs of the client for a particular project and the policies that govern contracting for the client’s organization or agency. Generally speaking, non-profit organizations have more latitude in how they approach a solicitation than government agencies, but even government agencies have some flexibility depending on the specific region, district, or individual contracting office’s interpretation of the rules. It never hurts to ask your powers that be what alternatives you have in preparing a solicitation, so that you are more likely to get the types of responses you’re looking for.

The best RFPs are simple, clear, and concise. They should include: a brief description of the project and the organization responsible for it; pertinent background information (has a plan already been started by staff? are there mitigating factors such as schedule or budget? how much assistance can be provided by client staff or other resources?); work products (deliverables) expected; instructions for how to put the proposal together (work samples, resumés of key personnel, references, process steps, cost, etc.); contact information for someone who can answer questions; selection process; evaluation criteria; and delivery instructions (date and time due, street address for delivery, etc.).

Resist the temptation to do the project in the RFP. If you have existing information, let the respondents know that, but allow some flexibility in process among respondents – no two planners or companies work exactly the same way and they may be able to save you time and money if they’re allowed to suggest a process rather than having to hold to a rigid construct that you provide. Having said that, if there are specific meetings that you know must be held, or deadlines that can’t be missed, or work products that you absolutely have to have (such as measurable objectives in a logic model construct), be sure to include those in the RFP.

Because NAI staff will not respond to RFPs in a competitive process, a service we can offer is to review your RFP before it hits the street to see if there are any red flags. There is no charge for this – just send your RFP to me (lbrochu@interpnet.com) and give me a day or two to comment on anything that might put off contractors from bidding or that needs clarification. If you send your distribution-ready RFP to us at NAI, we can immediately send it (or the link to it) to all commercial members so that you get better distribution of your solicitation.

Next week, I’ll address how to respond to an RFP for better success in landing projects. If you have specific questions that you’d like answered related to that, please feel free to comment below.

Very often, a planner is called upon to take an existing plan or background material to the next stage. Maybe the client, or group of coworkers, has developed a preliminary approach and the planner (whether hired or part of the staff) must review that approach and move forward. So what happens if the approach is off-base, either a little or a lot?

I like the idea of “tweaking” rather than throwing someone’s work effort out wholesale. This activity can require some delicate footwork, depending on whose work is being tweaked. Let’s face it, you don’t want to be the one to tell your boss straight out that he or she doesn’t know anything. And the good news is, you rarely have to. Usually, it’s a matter of making a few minor adjustments before forging on. Let’s take an example:

You’re handed a document entitled “exhibit content” and have been asked to populate an exhibit gallery with interactive exhibits. The document consists of six pages (single-spaced, double-sided) with sentences and sentence fragments related to things that might be included in your new exhibit hall. Some are stories, some are design ideas, some might even be called things you want to accomplish or objectives. It looks like someone took the results of a brainstorming session and simply recorded notes without any filtering, but you’re new here, don’t want to step on anyone’s toes, and you really can’t make any sense out of the document because it gives no real direction about what to do next.

Rather than starting from scratch entirely, take the time to review the document in detail and perhaps color-code the individual items (red dot in the margin for stories; blue for actual design ideas; green for objectives; etc.). Now reorganize the document according to your color coding system. Where are the holes? Starting with what you have, begin plugging those holes.

Is it clear what you’re trying to accomplish in support of the mission? Take the suggested objectives and tweak them into a logic model that makes sense with measurable factors for impacts and outcomes that also help define your audience. Once everyone agrees on what you’re trying to accomplish, see if you can tweak the miscellaneous facts and stories into a theme-subtheme-storyline construct to land on a strong, central message that everyone can support.

Test the design ideas to ensure that the suggested concepts communicate the desired message to the targeted audience so that the objectives can be accomplished. Are there objectives, audience segments, or messages that haven’t been addressed by the ideas in hand? If so, let your creativity take over to fill in those gaps. Round out the effort by preparing a budget and an action plan for next steps.

The people who participated in developing the preliminary document will feel that their efforts have been honored, but you will feel better having a more usable plan that is well-organized and gives clear direction for what needs to happen next. Along the way, trim away the ideas that don’t seem to fit, but retain and build on the ones that do. Salvage what you can and praise the efforts of those who provided the starting point. Sometimes the nuggets you will uncover will be pure gold and sometimes they will require a little polishing to make them worthwhile but learning to tweak rather than toss can save time and effort, build stronger working relationships, and capture the valuable ideas that may otherwise fall by the wayside.

I’m often baffled by interpretive sites such as museums, zoos, botanical gardens, parks, and nature centers, that operate from a deep-seated belief that what they do is completely unique and so only a museum planner can plan museums, and a zoo planner zoos, etc. The reality is that there are definitely design issues that are unique to these facilities – for example, live animal exhibits in nature centers and zoos or “living” museums like the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, require certain critical factors not found in typical park visitor centers or artifact-laden museums). But sound principles of planning transcend the type of facility. Terminology can easily be changed to fit the situation – a “site” can refer to a building, or a geographic land mass. “Resource” may mean the collection at a museum or the physical or cultural features of a landscape. Terms are interchangeable, but skill sets are not.

And therein lies one of the biggest problems I’ve seen associated with planning projects – the lack of distinction between planning and design. Generally speaking, planners are not designers and conversely, designers are not planners. Having said that, some people have both skill sets and can take a project through planning and design phases successfully. Others should stick to what they are good at, and recognize that these skill sets are not interchangeable. The best designers will know when a plan has not been well thought out and may even ask to bring in a planner to help ensure that best practices are followed so that everyone ends up satisfied.

Planning helps determine the most appropriate media to communicate a specific message to a targeted audience  in support of the agency’s mission, goals, and objectives. Design helps create the media once good planning has determined what the most appropriate media will be. That may be a subtle distinction for some, but have you ever worked with someone who decides what the solution needs to be before fully identifying the problem? Usually, the problem is not “we need a trail.” The problem might be “we need to have people interact appropriately with the forest environment.” A trail with interpretive signs may be the best approach, but if the primary users of this forest are equestrians, interpretive signs are not going to fill the bill. In fact, they create a trail hazard for horses and riders and cannot reasonably be posted at a height that would be necessary for ease of reading by equestrians.

Planning makes you step back and check yourself – are you asking the right questions without assuming you already know the answers? Good planning saves time and money. I was recently asked to work on a plan by someone who assumed that writing a plan simply meant listing as much media as you could fit on the page and into the site. In fact, at this particular site, less is more and there is little reason to put a lot of media on the ground, given the purpose of the site and the interests of the audience. Going through a planning process and matching the needs of the visitors with the needs of the agency and the physical features of the site and resource clearly pointed out some significant cost-saving measures.

So going back to the original question – is museum planning different than zoo planning? Well, it depends, to a certain extent. According to the fourth principle of interpretive planning, every project is unique so every process will be different. But that doesn’t mean that each venue type needs a completely different approach to planning in general. The 5-Ms still work, whether you’re looking at a museum, a nature center, a botanical garden, a zoo or a commercial theme park. Learn to ask the right questions and your plan is halfway done. The other half, of course, is coming up with the answers to those questions. Then, and only then, are you ready to start designing the media called for in the plan.

In any planning process, or operations of an interpretive site or organization, there are people we call key players: those with authority, those with power, and those with influence. Usually these are not the same people. Understanding who they are in relation to your project and how to work with (or sometimes around) these people can make a significant difference in the success or failure of your process and the final product.

The person (or people) with authority are the ones who actually sign off on the project. Generally speaking, this person will be the designated project manager (hence the term, “authorized signature” on most contracts). You might think that the person who signs off is also the person who is making decisions, but very often that’s not the case. What you may learn, hopefully sooner rather than later, is that there is a higher power that drives the signature. In other words, some project managers may still be responsible to a supervisor somewhere who is making them approve things or disapprove things that they don’t necessarily want to approve or disapprove.

Unfortunately, when this is the case, last week’s blog on bad ideas may come into play. The influencers are the ones who may look like ordinary people on the outside, but are really what we call “stakeholders.” Maybe they hold the pursestrings on the financial support for implementation of the project. Maybe they simply have the ear of the authority or power figures and like to manipulate people or processes for their own reasons. Maybe they talk the loudest or complain the most bitterly and so are listened to over more reasoned individuals in a simple attempt to quiet the maelstrom. They may influence the process in many ways, not all of which will be constructive.

So how do you identify who fits what bubble and use the strength of that knowledge to help the process be productive? The authority figure is usually easy to identify, just look for the signature. He or she should be identified in a contract if there is one, or if your project is taking place totally in-house, this person is usually going to be your immediate supervisor. Keep this person happy with great communication – document conversations and keep him or her informed of what’s happening with the project. Involve him or her in the process at each step to foster a strong connection and feeling of ownership with the project.

Should the power figure come into play, again, communication is key. By providing your authority figure with all the information needed, the power figure often becomes a supportive, positive power for good instead of an obstruction to overcome. Keep this person in the loop at key points along the way in the process, to whatever extent he or she requests. Recognize that there may be times when you will not sway a power person from his or her position, and that there may be good reasons for that which you may not fully understand – perhaps there are other factors at play in the big picture scheme of things that are causing the power person to play that card as necessary.

The influencers are perhaps the trickiest to deal with, but taking the time to assess what motivates these people is definitely in your best interest. Once you understand their motivations, you may find ways to influence the influencers so that their input supports the project instead of derails it. Asking what motivates them is rarely successful, so get to know them. Take the time to ask questions and listen (first principle of interpretive planning) to their responses and to what they’re not saying out loud. Help them understand how to be helpful and they may just become your project’s biggest fan. Once in that position, influencers can help you overcome power people problems or authority issues.

The main thing to remember is that it takes a lot of folks to work through any process and all of them are important. Keep that fifth principle in mind – everybody has to win, but the big winner has to be the mission of the organization. Ultimately, that’s what everyone must be after to be truly successful.

The interpretive planning process usually yields the opportunity to produce great ideas. Almost always, at some point during the process, someone will come up with an idea that isn’t so great. Maybe it doesn’t match the media with the targeted market segment so well (serious archaeologists are likely to be offended by an exhibit that uses Indiana Jones as a “host”). Or maybe it costs twelve times as much as the budget allows. Perhaps it requires parts or maintenance that will be impossible because of the location . . . any number of things can go wrong with that “great” idea someone came up with, which would, in fact, make it, well, a bad idea.

If your project team is good-natured and open to suggestions, bad ideas can easily be discussed and discarded in favor of better ideas. But let’s say the bad idea comes from someone who is unwilling to let it go and may have the authority to insist on going ahead with it. What are your options? Generally speaking, you have three choices, whether you are an employee of Bad Idea Person or a contractor.

1) You can always quit rather than doing something you think is dangerous or morally reprehensible. This drastic action would obviously be reserved for those ideas that are seriously bad in ways that may compromise your personal or professional integrity.

2) You can nod, smile, pretend to like the idea and talk about Bad Idea Person behind his or her back later. I’m not a big fan of this option. It usually comes back to haunt you later and tends not to be productive for a lot of reasons. Not only is it dishonest and petty, but it may be downright dangerous and expensive if Bad Idea Person later tries to blame the bad idea on you (well, you should have told me it was a bad idea, so this is clearly your fault, not mine).

3) You can register and document your concern, but stick with the project to attempt to mitigate the problems the bad idea might create. This action may require some delicate handling of the interpersonal relationships on your project team. Understanding group dynamics and the psychology of facilitation is a huge plus if this option is going to be your approach. Sometimes simply asking Bad Idea Person to help you understand the idea better allows him or her come to grips with its true level of badness. If not, I will sometimes propose documenting the advantages and disadvantages of all options in the final plan. I have even gone so far as to put in the draft document “against the advice of consultants, option BI has been selected for further development.” This puts your concerns on record. I’ve found that more often not, Bad Idea Person will back down once they see the disadvantages or the phrase “against the advice” in writing. If the idea still goes forward, making minor modifications that Bad Idea Person will find acceptable can usually help it be not quite so bad (spoofing Indiana Jones so that the archeologists can roll their eyes and get a laugh; phasing so the budget hit is more workable; finding a lower maintenance technology).

Finally, learn to get over it and get over yourself. The world is filled with bad ideas and you cannot control the process perfectly every time. Move on and hope for better days and better ideas to come.

Can any interpreter be an interpretive planner? Are the two terms synonymous? Does being a good interpreter mean you’ll also be a good planner or vice versa? Two events happened this week that caused me to think about this again. And the answer, for me, anyway is still the same. No, the two words are not synonymous, nor are the job skills the same for the two very different jobs.

I’ve been both in my career – I’ve done front-line programs as an interpreter on a variety of topics including both history and nature. The bulk of my career has been spent as an interpretive planner. And while I can say that I certainly benefitted as a planner from having good interpretive skills and understanding what it takes to be an interpreter from a programmatic standpoint, I can also say that those skills do not necessarily provide all the needed basics for sound interpretive planning.

Interpreters should have excellent communication skills to convey an interpretive theme, whether in writing or in personal presentations. They should also be extremely well-versed in the resource information needed to support their theme. Although some interpreters do their best work behind the scenes as writers, most tend to want to be in front of people. Interestingly, many would classify themselves as introverts on a personal level, but on a professional level they usually enjoy that daily interaction with the public that occurs when they’re providing personal interpretation services (programs).

Interpretive planners, on the other hand, may or may not have a great deal of public interaction as they perform their duties. If public input is one of those tools that is required for a particular project, then learning good facilitation skills (different than interpretive communication) is a real plus for a planner. Certainly, an interpretive planner must not only understand what interpretation is and how to craft a theme on a much broader scale than a single program (requiring an entirely different process), but they must also have a basic understanding of the many related disciplines that will be involved with the process – marketing, architecture, landscape architecture, business management, exhibit design, strategic planning, and more.

Any interpreter who has attempted to write a site-wide or region-wide interpretive plan quickly learns that knowing how to put together a single program does not prepare you for the intricacies of successful interpretive planning. Conversely, many, if not most, interpretive planners, would be at a loss if asked to present an interpretive program to a group of people visiting the beach on the weekend. And that’s okay. They are different jobs, with different skill sets required. Some people can do both, and that’s okay too. In fact, it’s a real bonus in my view.

There are many, many different jobs and job titles related to the interpretive field. Interpretive planner is just one of them (and it’s also different from exhibit designer, or architect, or landscape architect, or marketing specialist, or strategic planner, or any number of other jobs), but it is most definitely not the same thing as “interpreter.”

For more information, visit NAI’s Certification Handbook and Study Guide to see the knowledge, skills and abilities listed for Certified Heritage Interpreters and Certified Interpretive Planners.

One of the most valuable tips I can share about getting through the interpretive planning process painlessly is simply to document every conversation. Sounds easy, so why don’t more people do it? If you don’t currently have a system for documenting conversation, experiment with a few simple ways to do this. First, make sure the right people are having conversations.

Every project should have an assigned project manager. Given that the project usually involves both client and contractor, that means the client team needs a project manager and the contractor team needs a project manager. The project managers should be the only ones who are cleared to make decisions that might affect the outcome of the process. Project managers should talk directly to each other, not to each other’s staff or subcontractors. Team members (staff or resource specialists on the client side, and staff or subcontractors on the contractor side) should be talking directly to their own project manager. Occasionally, project teams may share information directly with each other, but at no time, should any information sharing be considered a decision to move in any specific direction without project manager approval.

During the course of the project, conversations will take place in a variety of ways: as review comments, face to face during planning sessions or review meetings, over the phone, or by email. For any conversation that is not already in writing, make a habit of following up the conversation with a written note (email is fine) that captures the content of the conversation and details any decisions that have been made. The note should say something like “this is what we talked about . . . if you have anything to add or edit, please do so within the next 24 hours and let me know what those changes are. If you’re ok with everything here, just send me a quick reply that lets me know you got this message.” Either party can take the initiative to do this – just makes sure it gets done.

Now you have documentation to support your next moves. If you run into problems later, you can go back to your documentation and figure out the solution much easier than relying on your or someone else’s memory or interpretation of the conversation.

This simple act can save hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars, as well as keeping the project on track and all project partners well-informed and happy. Without the documentation trail, assumptions get made, mistakes get blamed on others, and disagreements can derail the project, sometimes with disastrous results. Good communication is the key to success in any project process, but to keep everyone on the same page, get it in writing.

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.

One of the frequently asked questions I get is “if my client wants to change things that have already been approved, do I have to do that?” or the converse “if we request changes, isn’t the contractor liable for those changes?”

The answer, of course, is it depends on the situation. And more specifically, the wording in the contract. Generally speaking, I highly recommend putting a cover sheet on any submittal (if the contractor doesn’t take the initiative to do it, the client should). On the cover sheet is a simple grid. The grid has four columns:

Column 1 – Identify what product is being submitted (first draft, second draft, final draft, etc.)

Column 2 – Approved as is. If you like the submittal and are ready to move ahead to the next step, then date and initial this column with the initials of the person who has authority to approve submittals. The only person who should be putting his or her initials here is the one designated as the client project manager and who has legal authority to sign and approve things at any stage of the process. Once you sign this box, you’re saying the work is good, you plan to pay for it, and it’s okay to move forward. You cannot change your mind later without paying for additional services from the contractor.

Column 3 – Approved with changes as noted. If you generally like the submittal but there’s a few tweaks to make, you might date and initial this box. What this means is that the contractor should incorporate the review comments you provided in the next submittal, but it’s okay to move forward as long as those changes get taken into consideration. If the contractor doesn’t make the changes with the next submittal, then you would definitely want to use the Column 4 box next.

Column 4 – NOT approved. If you really don’t like the submittal, and believe it needs substantial changes before being accepted, sign this box. Send the work back and do not pay for it until it meets your standards and you can feel good about signing in Column 2 or 3.

If you sign in Column 2 or 3 and then a few submittals later, change your mind and decide you want to go a whole new direction, then your contractor would be on solid ground to require additional services money and a change order before proceeding. But if you sign in Column 4, your contractor needs to get the work right before going ahead or getting paid.

How many times can you reasonably ask for changes (Column 4)? If the contract doesn’t specify otherwise, then my rule of thumb has always been three. If a contractor can’t satisfy you with three attempts for the same submittal, there is a serious breakdown of communication going on and chances are good that no one is ever going to get satisfaction. It may be time to terminate the contract and salvage what’s left of the budget by working with someone new. Having said that, every attempt should be made to communicate clearly what needs to be changed before taking that drastic step. Writing clear review comments can be a big help toward that end.

Review comments that say “it just doesn’t feel right somehow,” or “I can’t put my finger on it, but I’d like something different here” do not help your contractor satisfy your request. Ambiguous statements make your contractor have to guess at what’s in your mind, so practice giving constructive comments that are specific and measurable. For example, “we need to cut the word count to below 150 on this panel,” or “I asked for a fine art illustration and you provided a cartoon approach – please provide what was originally asked for,” or “our objective is to get people to take action on a local conservation issue – the exhibit plan as it stands will not elicit that action. I need an exhibit that specifically provides a call to action and introduces people to opportunities to take that action. Let’s talk about options and ideas if you don’t have something in mind.”

Keep your contract handy – it should contain a clause(s) that will specify who is responsible for making changes and at what point that responsibility shifts to adding services and additional payment. Be clear with your paper trail on what’s been approved, what changes are needed, and what will be paid for and when. As long as everyone understands the ground rules going in, your contract should run smoothly.

The interpretive planning process is a fluid thing. It would be much easier if there were a simple fill-in-the-blanks template and all you had to do was literally fill in the blanks for your site. But I’ve never thought that made much sense because of the number of variables that influence each project’s success or failure. That fluidity can give you freedom to explore a variety of planning techniques and options if you’re disciplined enough to still get the job done or it can simply make you crazy if you don’t know where to start and find yourself unable to make decisions and move forward through the process.

So which comes first in the process – theme or objectives? You’re right . . . it depends. For the most part, I will always want to know the mission, goals, and objectives of a project before proceeding any further down the path. My theme or message might entirely depend on what I’m trying to accomplish if I’m taking a management-based or market-based approach to the plan. If I’m taking a resource-based approach, then maybe my theme is what tells me what I must accomplish, and in that case, I may develop my theme first and then write objectives that support it.

Which approach is better? If by better, you mean has a better chance of success (defined as meeting your objectives) overall, then I would have to go with writing objectives first, then crafting a theme statement that will help communicate whatever needs to be communicated to targeted audiences so that they can help in accomplishing those objectives.

That doesn’t mean that I don’t need to know the important stories of the place before starting to write objectives. If I don’t know why a place or collection has value to somebody or what its significance is, then why am I even trying to interpret it? But let’s look at a concrete example.

The topic is diamonds. We could probably all agree that diamonds are a valued resource. If my objective is get people to buy more diamonds, then my theme might be “diamonds are a girl’s best friend.” But if my objective is to reveal the sordid side of the conflict diamond industry and therefore discourage people from buying conflict diamonds, then my theme might be “diamonds cost more than dollars.” Two very different approaches to the same topic (diamonds) for two very different reasons.

Message matters – very often, an interpretive site or agency’s marketing department will put forth a message that may be in direct conflict with the site’s actual objectives if the marketing department is not brought into the interpretive planning process. Because message matters so much in making your interpretive efforts successful, you would do well to be clear about your objectives before crafting that message. Then check it against the objectives to be sure that objectives and theme are consistent. As you continue through the process, you may find yourself tweaking either objectives or theme or both . . . that’s the fluid part of the process. But you have to start somewhere and in my view, asking what you’re trying to accomplish is the place to start almost every time.