|
|||||||||
| You are here: Home > Publications > Newsletter > Archives > 1999-5-May > | ||||||||||||||||||
UPDATE ON THE SCB STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS
Nick Salafsky and Richard Margoluis
I. OverviewAs outlined in the November 1998 issue of this newsletter, SCB is undertaking a strategic planning process to determine where it should devote its energies and how it should use its growing resources. In this report, we first present results of a survey of the membership. We then describe the results of a planning meeting held by the Board of Governors in Santa Barbara, California in February 1999. At this meeting, the Board decided to move forward with a new publication for conservation practitioners and to subsidize the cost of memberships for people from developing countries. The Board also identified several other topics upon which SCB should focus. These include continuing to promote sound scientific research and public awareness about conservation issues, expanding the reach of the SCB in a strategic manner to include people outside of North America, and improving conservation education. The Board began the process of developing and refining specific initiatives in each of these areas. The strategic planning process will continue with the following steps. 1. Present results to the membership for discussion. By presenting the results of the survey and initial meeting in this newsletter, we hope to encourage discussion and debate, culminating in a session to be held at the 1999 annual meeting. If a consensus can be reached, we will adopt a general plan at the members meeting. 2. Enact steps. Once the plan has been approved, it needs to be implemented. 3. Periodically evaluate plan. We will build into the plan ways of evaluating it to make sure that we are staying on track. In addition, on a regular basis we will review the plan to make sure that it still makes sense.
II. Survey ResultsThe following is an overview of the survey results. A more detailed presentation of these results can be found on the SCB web site.
A. Background InformationTotal number of respondents: 92 Number of respondents by type (n = 90)
Mean years of membership: 5.3 (n = 50; this question was omitted from the survey form on the web site) Geographic focus (n = 56; again omitted from web site forms)
B. SCB's Historical Accomplishments
C. SCB's Future RoleWhat are the most pressing problems facing the conservation community? (Top 3; numbers indicate frequency of response)
What specific steps should SCB devote its other resources to in the future? (Top 5)
D. Evaluating Specific Strategies for SCBFrequency responses to the following statements (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree) SCB should . . . (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Mean, n):
III. Planning Session ResultsThe SCB Board of Governors met at National Center for Ecological Research and Synthesis in Santa Barbara, California on 20 and 21 February. The meeting was designed to go through the steps in a strategic planning process. In the first session, Board members reviewed the history of SCB and the survey results. We then discussed the constraints faced by SCB, including money, time, institutional structure, a lack of focus, and the diversity of our membership. Next, we reviewed a basic conceptual model of conservation to serve as a springboard for further discussion. Based upon this model, we addressed three questions.
A. What specific problems should SCB seek to address as a society? What solutions should SCB undertake to each problem?We began answering this question by brainstorming a list of problems and solutions. We then took our list and, in smaller groups, discussed each problem. For each item, the groups discussed how the proposed solutions might impact the problem. For example, a "practitioner journal" might impact the problem "science is not incorporated into conservation decisions" by stimulating peer-reviewed research and providing information for policy makers. For each listed problem, the groups outlined a potential objective, a series of activities that would be needed to reach the objective, and the resources needed and possible constraints. Next, we attempted to prioritize our list of problems and solutions, ranking them across a series of criteria. We addressed problems in the areas of scientific research, informal education, international problems, formal education, and getting information to users. Based upon these rankings, we decided whether or not to go forward with the activities (i.e., potential solutions). We also developed a series of "next steps" to further develop those activities that had a positive response. For example, we earmarked ~US$25,000 to support a workshop and prepare a book, two of the solutions proposed to address the problem of setting global research issues. Similarly, we decided to subsidize international subscriptions to the journal in order to address the problem of limited international access to the primary conservation literature. Having completed these rankings, we went back to some of the issues that came up during the meeting. Chief among these was a desire to "revisit" the SCB Mission statement and determine to what degree SCB should become more of an advocacy organization. After some debate, we decided to postpone discussion of these issues until the annual meeting.
B. Where do we want to do conservation? Should SCB focus only on North America or on biodiversity around the world?After a brief discussion, we decided that SCB should focus on all biodiversity around the world that its members are working on--that there should be no specific geographic priorities.
C. Should SCB seek to expand its currently largely North American membership to people from other parts of the world?To facilitate this discussion, we used the following model. It shows a spectrum ranging from SCB only representing people in North American institutions (Point A) to SCB as a truly global society (Point C). The group essentially agreed that we are currently somewhere in the vicinity of Point T1999. The question is where we want to end up in the future. An intermediate step of having SCB catalyze the development of a "family" of similar societies in other countries was proposed (Point C). Although we did not come to any final conclusions, we did realize that the "window" that we are aiming for is probably somewhere in the region around Point TF.
IV. Next StepsAt the end of the strategic planning session, a nearly universal sentiment was that the time had been too short to deal with all the issues that SCB is facing. As a result, the Board agreed to revisit some of these issues at the annual meeting. In addition, the Board agreed to try to set up a second meeting each year outside of the annual meeting. As outlined at the start of this article, a key "next step" in the overall strategic planning process involves getting feedback and comments from the membership at large. You can share your comments in one of three ways. 1. Contact the SCB Board members (contact information is in the front of each issue of the journal). 2. Attend the session at the Annual Meeting devoted to this topic. 3. Send the Development Committee a message c/o Nick Salafsky (Email salafsk@macfdn.org). We look forward to your comments and feedback. Thanks to Jonnell Allen of the Biodiversity Support Program for her help with collecting and analyzing the survey results, Britta Bierwagen of the University of California - Santa Barbara for her help in recording and writing up the planning session results, Kent Redford of the Wildlife Conservation Society for his assistance with this overall process, Sandy Andelman and NCEAS for hosting the February planning session, and all the members of the SCB Board of Governors who attended the meeting.
|
|
||
|
|
||
Copyright © 2008 Society for Conservation Biology (SCB)
Direct questions, comments, and technical problems to the webmaster SCB is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization |