Developing resources to satisfy perceived needs or wishes

7

Content

Scoping · finding process · time · food preservation example · computer system example · human resources example · geographic service area example · conclusion

Resource planning is the practice of developing resources to satisfy needs or wishes by communicating concerns and opportunities, establishing objectives, making decisions, and executing plans.  It is concerned with all aspects of resource management including communication and progress facilitation; project scope; task developments; findings based on evidence, conclusions, and validity; knowledgeable and intelligent decisions; and continual improvements.  The endeavor is an iterative and interactive three-phase and nine-step planning and scoping process.  The nine steps through the three phases are:

Establish objectives and define and quantify concerns	· Identify problems and/or opportunities · Inventory resources · Analyze resource data · Determine objectives
Make decisions	· Formulate alternatives · Evaluate alternatives · Select alternative
Execute a plan	· Implement plan · Evaluate plan

Since the process is iterative and interactive, the phases and steps presented above are not necessarily in systematic order.  That is, steps and phases may be reconsidered and performed to allow for continual improvements, scoping, and possible consensus.

Scoping

As for scoping, scoping can be an integral planning process development.  By definition, a scope is the actions and impacts consideration range for describing problems and opportunities and formulating and evaluating alternatives.  Scoping can also provide a concern consideration record that is not found to require plan detailed discussion or evaluation.  For a group, the relative insignificance of certain concerns is to be agreed upon by all scoping process participants.

Finding process

To generate a binding or legal effect to address problems, opportunities, and concerns involving a group of individuals or representatives, participants can establish objectives through a ‘finding’ process based on evidence, reasons, basic conclusions, and primary conclusion.  According to Owen Schmidt during a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Environmental Compliance Workshop, the finding process within the ‘objectives establishment’ phase can be thought of schematically as being a pyramid made up of blocks.  This pyramid is based on a foundation made up of blocks of evidence, the lower-to-mid load-bearing levels is made up of basic conclusions that is supported by evidence, the upper level block is the primary conclusion supported by basic conclusions, and the peak is the binding or legal effect supported by the primary conclusion.  Throughout this ‘pyramid’, the structure is bonded together by reasons.  The more solid the evidence and cohesive the reasons, the better the group or government can address concerns.  Tyranny, on the other hand, can be thought of as being a weak pyramid in which the legal effect is weakly supported only by some primary conclusion without any cohesive reasons and underlying basic conclusions and evidence.

Time

Depending on problem and opportunity scope, parties involved, and subject disciplines or knowledge bodies needed to accomplish tasks, the planning process time can vary considerably.  It can vary from a few minutes for an individual to a number of years or decades for communities or industries.

Food preservation example

For example, an individual purchased a new residence and noted that the new home does not have any means to preserve or store perishable food for future human consumption.  The individual noted that the aboveground residence does not have access to an underground cellar but it does have sufficient space and electric power supply in the kitchen for an appliance that can preserve and store food in compartments by keeping food cool.  In addition, the individual has sufficient monetary funds to purchase an appliance.  Consequently, the individual establishes the objective to obtain a food-cooling appliance.  This phase takes only a few minutes within the individual’s mind during a walk through the new residence.  During the second phase, the individual formulates alternatives by gathering information on a variety of food-cooling appliances ranging from iceboxes to refrigerators.  In evaluating alternatives, the individual considers manufacturer claims, product supply, performance quality, third-party reviews and recommendations, showroom inspections, new versus used appliances, service warranties and support, contract arrangements, retailer reputation and service history, and prices.  Completing this phase, the individual decides to purchase a new refrigerator from a certain manufacturer at a walk-in local retailer.  During the third phase, the individual implements the plan by purchasing a refrigerator from the desired retailer, installing the refrigerator in the kitchen, and utilizing the refrigerator.  Over time, the individual evaluates the purchase by noting actual refrigerator performance and service satisfaction.  In the end, this resource planning process can take as little time as a few days or a week and the individual may not have been aware that a ‘resource planning’ process was executed.  As one can imagine, the quality and satisfaction of the experience can vary widely should planning steps be made in haste, superficially, or ignored altogether for a given time period.

Computer system example

Formulating alternatives can involve many factors as in the case of considering a computer system to obtain an information system, whether it is for an individual or organization.  Many factors may need to be considered to arrive at a good decision even after settling upon certain anticipated use scope, such as settling on a desktop computer system after deciding against a mobile or fixed workstation, lunchbox, desktop replacement, or notebook computer system.  These factors may include the following computer system considerations:

Ergonomics · architecture · mother board socket type · central processing unit · basic input/output system · thermal dissipation · memory · mass storage · display · sound · input devices · expandability · communications · ports · docking capability · physical dimensions and weight · power · hardware security and locks · operating system · display electromagnetic field rating · material toxicity · plastic flame-retardant toxicity · recyclable material composition · cooling noise · footprint size · pre-installed software · third-party reviews · warranties · support · trade options · price

Even just considering warranties and support, there can be widely varying offers.  These offers can range from or include original manufacturer standard protection, return and exchange, hardware warranties, hardware repair, technical support, and tune ups.  These services can even vary depending on time periods and service providers such as manufacturer initial return and/or exchange period, manufacturer after initial return and/or exchange to term period, manufacturer or some other vendor extended period options, and manufacturer lifetime periods.  Should the individual or organization wish to use information exchange capabilities while using the computer system, such as facsimile, electronic mail, and Intranet and/or Internet access, additional factors may need to be considered.  These additional factors can include information exchange protection, encryption, decryption, identification, authentication, resident software and data protection, and support.  Desired information exchange protection can include resident firewall; anti-virus, anti-Trojan Horse, and anti-Trackware protection; and many security, authenticity, and privacy capabilities.  As this example indicates, preparing questions and setting up boundary conditions to begin the alternatives formulation step can be intricate.

Human resources example

For a human resources alternative formulation example, consider a business company exploring facilitated mentoring program possibilities to improve employee performance, retention, and recruitment.  More specifically, the company wishes to improve productivity, communication and understanding, experienced people motivation maintenance, effective recruitment efforts, service offering enhancements, and effective strategic and succession planning.  In formulating alternatives, the company can explore concepts, terminology, and scope questions to develop boundary conditions.  According to Margo Murray in her book entitled Beyond the Myths and Magic of Mentoring—How to Facilitate an Effective Mentoring Program,[1] some of these questions may include:

Who is a mentor?  Who is a protégé?  What are the benefits to the organization?  What are the motives for facilitated mentoring?  What are the challenges of mentoring for the organization, mentors, and protégés?  Does the organization really have the need for such a program?  How will protégés be selected and their needs identified?  How will the learning from the program be reinforced and rewarded?

Other questions could include:

In order to foster program plan satisfaction and sponsorship, should the leadership team establish scope and conditions?  Should a quality process team explore logistical details?  Should the organization consult with a facilitated mentoring program specialist or authority?  Should successful mentoring programs in other organizations be benchmarked to note how needs are met?  Should unsuccessful programs in other organizations be benchmarked to note insensitive and uncommitted practices that may lead to programmatic and interpersonal failures?

Implied in the questions during the ‘formulate alternatives’ step is the ‘no project’ or ‘future without project’ alternative.  In this case, maintaining the status quo by not having a facilitated mentoring program may be a viable option due to a number of possible factors.  These factors could include few advancement opportunities that may frustrate people with high aspirations, low commitment from company leaders or executives to develop and promote people from within, low financial and time commitments, poor coordination with other programs causing budget strains or human resource department jealous objections, difficulties selling the program to decision-makers because of few comprehensive studies and little data, and/or complicated and expensive administration.

Geographic service area example

For the final interdisciplinary geographic service area example, consider a lake watershed plan and environmental assessment sponsored by a Native American nation or reservation and a local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) for a watershed located in two counties in a western U.S. state.  The following descriptions were gathered and paraphrased from a Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment (Plan/EA) document developed by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).  Geographic, watershed, lake, sponsor, local government, state government, staff, and individual names were omitted, as they are not relevant for this example.

Plan recommendation.  Through planning facilitation, scoping, consensus, consultations, preliminary field surveys, analyses, and professional judgments, the USDA-NRCS described a recommended plan to reduce erosion and sedimentation into the lake, improve cropland irrigation water distribution, improve fish and wildlife habitat, and provide additional recreational facilities around the lake.  Alternatives considered during planning included the No Project Alternative and three other alternatives that included both structural and land treatment measures.  The recommended plan proposes sediment and irrigation water storage structures, grade control structures, bank stabilization, recreational facilities, an irrigation distribution system, on-farm irrigation systems, fish habitat pool developments, and land treatment measures for grazed forestland and rangeland areas.  The total cost is estimated at over two million dollars with local share being about twenty percent.

The Plan/EA fulfilled the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Water Resource Council's Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies, and the NRCS National Watershed Manual.  The Plan/EA serves as a basis for authorization of Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act funding and to request federal implementation funds.  The Plan/EA includes Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act program purposes of flood prevention, agricultural water management, and nonagricultural water management.  That is, these purposes coincide with sediment and erosion; irrigation; and recreation, fish, and wildlife needs, respectively.  The recommended measures will also contribute to water quality protection and improvement.  The Plan/EA described measures to be installed, needed permits and compliance, costs, installation schedule and financing, operation, and measures maintenance and replacement.

The Plan/EA is the result of an application submitted by the SWCD and the Native American nation to the NRCS under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act Small Watershed Program.  This request prompted an interdisciplinary team composed of NRCS, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and the Native American nation personnel to assess water resource problems of the lake watershed.  The assessment was accomplished through a series of consensus planning meetings.  Several public meetings were held to gather public input.  It was determined that the lake is rapidly filling with sediment and its useful life as a recreation and fishing lake is being shortened.  Sediment is transported during high runoff periods.  Other identified problems are a shortage of recreation facilities around the lake to meet current demand and an inadequate irrigation distribution system immediately below the lake.  The lake watershed qualifies for Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act program assistance.

Planning process.  The Plan/EA is the documented record of the planning process.  The Plan/EA records problems and opportunities, the present situation, forecasts the future without project situation, and present alternatives to alleviate problems.  It also compares alternative effects and recommends a plan.

Consensus planning.  The information in the Plan/EA was developed through consensus planning, a process which solicited the agreement of natural resource problem definitions and remediation by natural resource professionals.  The Native American nation, local SWCD, NRCS, BIA, and other federal agencies and interested individuals contributed to needed information developments.  The natural resource interdisciplinary team personnel included civil engineers, agricultural engineers, foresters, biologists, economists, soil conservationists, geologists, and public affairs specialists.  Several public meetings were also held where individuals who were not able to attend consensus-planning sessions made inputs.

Present situation.  When assessing the present situation during the objectives establishment phase, which leads to forecasting the future without project situation during the subsequent decision-making phase, resource inventories and data analyses were developed to describe the project setting.  These resource inventories and data analyses focused on land uses, watershed ecological conditions, grazed forest and range lands, irrigated crop lands, recreation, fish and wildlife habitats, wetlands and riparian areas, water quality, threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, climates, social and economic conditions, and soils.

Concerns.  As alluded to before, alternative plans were formulated to address the sediment load reaching the lake, recreation facilities shortage around the lake, inadequate irrigation water and on farm systems, and fish stream habitat improvement opportunity.  Many other concerns with high or medium significance were addressed in the formulation process.  Some concerns identified in the initial scoping meetings were beyond the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act scope.  For example, many land users indicated that vandalism, noise, and safety issues were of great concern at the lake recreation area.  Many of these concerns will need to be addressed by the sponsors and local government.

This project was first discussed during a summer field trip.  Federal and tribal agencies, soil and water conservation districts, and local tribal chapter personnel considered Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act program suitability to address Native American nation natural resource problems.  It was decided that the two-county watershed be given top priority.

Representatives from the Native American nation natural resources division, the local SWCD, local chapter personnel, the NRCS, and other federal agencies met four months later during the fall to discuss local concerns and potential solutions.  Meeting participants toured the watershed and agreed on document content requesting Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act program planning authority.

Four months later in March, representatives of the Native American nation and the NRCS met to develop the preliminary public participation plan.  Because of this meeting, NRCS planners joined with Native American natural resources division representatives to present a public meeting at each of the four effected chapters.  These meetings took place a few months later during the late spring and early summer.

In August, about a year after the initial field trip, project sponsors, interested local people, the NRCS and other federal agencies met to provide needed information to produce a Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act Plan/EA document.  This information was evaluated during consensus planning sessions where technical data were presented to participants who utilized their professional experience to arrive at a consensus on problems, solutions, and solution effects.  Consensus planning process results were presented at a public meeting a few months later.

The Plan/EA was completed and delivered to the sponsors to enable them to request implementation funds about two years after the public meeting.  That is, the pre-program funding request and pre-design planning process took about three years since the initial field trip.

Plan execution.  If federal implementation funds are available and approved for the recommended plan and the sponsors are able to follow through on their local cost share, the sponsors can execute the plan.  Should they do so, they would submit to NRCS design and installation specifications, whether they arrange to have detailed structure designs and treatment plans developed by the NRCS or by private sector contractors.

In some cases, watershed planning can take years to complete.  For some resource plans, it may take a few years just to complete a few initial steps within the first phase, such as resource inventories and resource data analyses, due to field surveys and possible laboratory sample investigations for sites that do not have any prior inventories or studies.

Conclusion

As these examples show, resource planning tools can encourage individuals and groups to facilitate communication and progress when developing resources to satisfy needs or wishes.  These tools can also encourage individuals and groups to develop tasks from questions, integrate knowledge and intelligence within decision-making, and make continual improvements.

Objective Thinker

Voicemail:  303.362.8425

www.geocities.com/gpdenp