Tools and TechniquesThe Shared Vision Planning MethodThe Shared Vision Planning approach employs a specific method for creating collaborative discussions and computer models. Anyone wishing to engage in Shared Vision Planning can follow these steps to enact this approach to resource management. The first five steps are performed iteratively; that is, the sequence of steps is repeated as more information becomes available for evaluation. For each step we give a brief description, the differences between Shared Vision Planning and traditional planning, and a link to a more detailed description from the National Drought Study. 1. Build a Team and Identify Problems with Stakeholders, Decision-Makers and ExpertsShared Vision Planning uses the concept of “Circles of Influence” when building a team. The idea is that all collaborators belong to one of three circles: A, B or C. Those in circle A are most involved in the study and carry out critical tasks, such as building the model, organizing meetings and conducting research. Those in circle B include representatives from key stakeholder groups, but they have less direct involvement than people in circle A. Circle C includes representatives from stakeholder groups, management agencies and advocacy groups. This circle comprises a larger number of people who have less direct involvement in the project than those in circle B. This approach ensures participation at manageable levels by a large number of stakeholders. The decisions and plans reached by all three circles working together are then presented to circle D, which includes agency heads and elected officials. Critical Difference: In addition to identifying problems and opportunities, SVP calls for a team of:
2. Develop Objectives and Metrics for EvaluationA planning objective is a concise, formally structured statement that explains how and when a study will try to affect a specific resource in a specific place. These objectives should be as clear as possible. The study group should also develop statistical measurements of the performance of the resource system, such as the frequency and duration of supply failures. Critical Differences: SVP puts explicit and repeated emphasis on identifying objectives and decision criteria because they may differ considerably from the national objectives and metrics used in the P&G.
3. Describe the Status Quo Using a Collaboratively Built ModelThe status quo shows what the outcome will be without any change in management. This is an important baseline against which alternative outcomes are judged. Critical Difference: The description of the status quo is based on a collaboratively built model of the system and tied to objectives and decision criteria.
4. Collaboratively Formulate Alternatives Using the ModelStakeholders and experts together can brainstorm ideas and develop plans that differ from the status quo. Critical Difference: Formulation and evaluation of alternatives is done iteratively with input from the team, and typically involves solutions that are not within the power of any one entity to implement.
5. Collaboratively Evaluate Alternatives and Develop Team Recommendations Using the ModelThe study team should compare alternatives against the status quo to find how they will meet the objectives developed in step 2. Promising alternatives should then be modeled in the shared vision model so that team members can collaboratively evaluate specific performance measurements. Based on results from the shared vision models, the team should find a consensus on specific recommendations for changing a current resource-management plan. Critical Difference: The team uses a collaboratively built model (the SVPM) to evaluate impacts of alternatives based on decision criteria. Formulation and evaluation can be done faster and cheaper, so there are more iterations in SVP than in a P&G study.
6. Implement and Institutionalize the PlanAgency heads and possibly elected officials must agree in writing to act in accordance with the recommended plan. Critical Difference: The P&G ends with the ranking of alternatives based on the decision criterion for Federal projects, then a local decision to build that project or send a recommendation to build to the President and Congress. In SVP, the SVPM shapes and is shaped by the process of collaboratively ranking alternatives in a process similar to the “informed consent” process used by doctors. Once a collaborative decision is made, it is implemented by the decision makers identified in Step 1.
7. Exercise and Update the PlanShared vision models can be used in years following the initial study to exercise and possibly update the plan so that it remains workable. Critical Difference: Periodic exercises of the plan for a range of operational conditions ensure that the plan is implemented as designed and is updated based on new information.
The National Drought StudyThe IWR Report Managing Water for Drought is known as the National Drought Study (NDS) throughout this web site. Its seven steps provide the framework from which Shared Vision Planning has evolved. Each step of the Shared Vision Planning Method above is further illustrated by an example from the National Drought Study. On these pages are excerpts from the study and a link to the full report (pdf, 1.57 MB). The Fairweather DemonstrationThis step-by-step demonstration is a hypothetical shared vision planning and modeling case study designed by Dr. Richard Palmer, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington. Use this tool to practice organizing and leading a Shared Vision Planning effort.
Reviewed 3 Aug 2011 |
|