Forest Environmental Management Systems

Adaptive Management and EMS

Adaptive management (AM) is an enigma. On the one hand it is as simple as learning by doing, thinking, and paying attention to what you've done; comparing what you thought might happen relative to what did happen and readjusting your thinking accordingly.

On the other hand it is as complex, as understanding the transformational processes at work in environmental and social systems, then melding management processes into these complex, adaptive systems in ways that prove complex and adaptive themselves.

Most practices in adaptive management work from a 'change' or 'problem' focus. Something changes or needs to change, as determined from sensing, and sense is made of the situation in order to move the organization forward. In some ways learning is achieved, and if passed on throughout the organization, organizational learning is claimed.

Change may be a small, effected at micro scales, or at larger scales up to and including the organization itself or even society. That's why Gunderson, Holling, and Light titled their compilation of AM writings Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions, and Gunderson and Holling titled theirs Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems.

Adaptive ecosystem management is interrelated with, and built from, among other things:

On the management side: Charles Peirce and John Dewey's Pragmatism, Herbert Simon and James March's Bounded Rationality, Chris Argyris and Donald Schön's Action Science, W. Edwards Deming's Management Method, Peter Senge and others' Organizational Learning, Karl Weick's Sensemaking, and Margaret Wheatley and Myron Kellner-Rogers' A Simpler Way.

On the politics side: Pragmatism, Pluralism, Participation.

On the science side: Complex, Adaptive Systems Theory, Ecology, etc.

Environmental Management Systems

The environmental management systems (EMS) approach also builds from some of the basic building blocks of adaptive management. But at least in my interpretation, whereas the primary focus of adaptive management is learning from a variety of sensing mechanisms including 'science and nature,' assessment, planning, doing, evaluation and feedback, etc. EMS tends to focus more narrowly on the learning acquired by primary feedback, design and adjustment of operational controls, etc. That is, EMS is more tightly focused on the evaluation and monitoring aspects of adaptive management.

EMS and Forest Planning

One challenge facing us is to figure out the interrelationship between EMS and the evaluation and monitoring (E & M) required by the 2005 NFMA rule. Even though not explicitly stated, we know that E & M spans the space of 'implementation, effectiveness, and validation' monitoring, evaluation and learning. I argue that EMS does too, although in the initial stages we will see much more tight focus on implementation. Our challenge will be to design EMS in ways that are not too complex and cumbersome that begin AND end with implementation, and associated single-loop learning.

Another challenge will be to design our EMS system so that is doesn't become a tail wagging the dog of adaptive management. To do so will be to repeat the mistake we made with comprehensive rational planning when planning over-dominated an adaptive management approach.

A final challenge will be to develop the type organizational culture that encourages individual and organizational learning. This challenge and promise of organizational betterment, is highlighted in Adaptive Management: A Tool for Conservation Practitioners, from the Biodiversity Support Program.

ISO and 'Environmental Aspects'

Each piece of an environmental management system (EMS) is designed to work with other pieces. To avoid 'the blind men and the elephant' problem, we need to keep the general EMS system design in mind as we develop any pieces. For example, we might think of education, planning, and regulatory enforcement as activities worthy of developing environmental aspects for since each, if done right, can have very positive outcomes on the environment. But by the ISO standard, we might instead envision them as "environmental controls" that help us reduce environmental impact via a different means.

Note that 'environmental policy' is the driver for implementing and improving an organization's environmental management system so that the organization can maintain and potentially improve its environmental performance. …[P]olicy should reflect the commitment of top management to comply with applicable legal requirements and other requirements, to prevent pollution and to continually improve. The environmental policy forms the basis upon which the organization sets its objectives and targets. …. {Environmental performance: measurable results of an organization's management of its environmental aspects.}

The key pieces of the EMS jigsaw puzzle seem to be environmental policy, 'activities, products and services,' environmental aspects, environmental impacts, environmental objectives, environmental targets, environmental performance, preventative action, corrective action, and any that I may have missed. Note that I do not include 'audits' since I view them with suspicion given my W. Edwards Deming management-theory leanings. At best audits serve as means to other ends. At worst they become self-serving and debilitating to organizations.

ISO 14001 Standard (Excerpts)

A.1 General requirements

…requires an organization to

a) establish … environmental policy,
b) identify environmental aspects .. in order to identify environmental impacts of significance,
c) identify … applicable legal requirements and other requirements,
d) identify priorities and set appropriate environmental objectives and targets,
e) establish … programme(s) to implement the policy and achieve objectives and meet targets,
f) facilitate planning, control, monitoring, preventative corrective actions, auditing and review activities to ensure both that the policy is complied with and that the environmental management system remains appropriate, and
g) be capable of adapting to changing circumstances.

An organization with no existing [EMS should conduct a review covering four key areas]

• identification of environmental aspects…,
• identification of applicable legal requirements and other requirements…,
• examination of existing environmental management practices and procedures, …
• evaluation of previous emergency situations and accidents.

Environmental Aspect

3.6 Environmental aspect: element of an organization's activities or products or services that can interact with the environment.

4.3.1. The organization shall establish, implement, and maintain a procedure(s)

a) to identify the environmental aspects of its activities, products, and services within the defined scope of its environmental management system that it can control and those that it can influence taking into account planned or new developments, or new or modified activities, products and services, and
b) to determine those aspects that have or can have significant impact(s) on the environment (i.e. significant environmental aspects).

A.3.1 An organization should identify the environmental aspects within the scope of its environmental management system, taking into account the inputs and outputs (both intended and unintended) associated with its current and relevant-past activities, products and services, planned new developments, or new or modified activities, products and services. This process should consider normal and abnormal operating conditions, shut-down and start-up conditions, as well as reasonably foreseeable emergency situations…

Organizations do not have to consider each product, component or raw material input individually. They may select categories of activities, products and services to identify their environmental aspects.

Although there is no single approach for identifying environmental aspects, the approach selected could for example consider

a) emissions to air,
b) releases to water,
c) releases to land,
d) use of raw materials and natural resources,
e) use of energy,
f) energy emitted, e.g. heat, radiation, vibration,
g) waste and by-products, and
h) physical attributes, e.g. size, shape, colour, appearance

In addition to those environmental aspects an organization can control directly, an organization should also consider aspects that it can influence, e.g. those related to good and services used by the organization and those related to products and services that it provides. Some guidance to evaluate control and influence is provided below. However, in all circumstances it is the organization that determines the degree of control and also the aspects that it can influence.

Consideration should be given to aspects related to the organization's activities, products and services, such as

• design and development,
• manufacturing processes,
• packaging and transportation,
• environmental performance and practices of contractors and suppliers,
• waste management,
• extraction and distribution of raw materials and natural resources,
• distribution, use, and end-of-life of products, and
• wildlife and biodiversity.

… Changes to the environment, either adverse or beneficial, that result wholly or partially from environmental aspects are called environmental impacts.

Forest Service Experience to Date

It seems that we are at a point where we commonly equate environmental aspect and "activities," rightly or wrongly. In a recent slide presentation, contractor Lynn Penniman provided these as examples of environmental aspects:

• Timber Harvesting
• Road Construction
• Prescribed Burning
• Wildlife Management
• Timber Sale Layout
• Site Prescription Planning
• Maintenance of Road Construction Equipment
• Protection of Special Sites

I notice that "planning'" is included in Penniman's list, although in my introductory remarks I have suggested that we might consider it to be an "operational control" rather than an "environmental aspect." So too, perchance, with "protection of Special Sites." Confusion rules! So be it. We are in the preliminary design stage.

National Ecological Observatory Network's Role In M & E

In an earlier post, I mentioned that I'd love to see a system (for forest plan monitoring and evaluation, for EMS, for both perchance) that used indicators as simple at the famed Chesapeake Bay "tennis shoe indicator" complimented with more rigorous measurements that are developed more by FS and other researchers than by NFS and national forest/districts.

Yesterday I got an email talking about the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). I didn't even know such a thing existed. Good news! Maybe this coalition effort can do what the National Biology Survey (Clinton-era sponsored organization that succumbed to the ABC (Anything But Clinton) axe shortly after the last Administration change) could not.

Maybe, just maybe this is the beginning of being able to answer some for-now unanswerable questions about biological diversity, species endangerment, etc. that have plagued forest planning and management under rules and regulations that pretended that answers would be forthcoming if only forest-level practitioners were better at compliance with the rules (e.g. the 1982 NFMA Regulation). I'll not conjecture here as to whether or not the 2005 NFMA rule (and accompanying Manuals and Handbooks, ISO 14001 standards, etc.) will serve us better than did the 1982 rule and other trappings of the bygone era, and era I have referred to as moving from multiple use to sustained conflict.

Questions for we who are charged with keeping track of all the various pieces of information that feed into our various assessment, planning, monitoring and evaluation, performance accountability, etc. systems: How are we supposed to keep track of who has what information? Is there a clearinghouse for such? Are any of our Forest Service forums helpful in making sense of this? Do we have a group, or several interrelated groups charged with keeping us all up to speed on who is doing what? Will someone, likely from the WO, please step up and set up a blog (or something better) to help us better understand what is going on in this area? Or is such already in place and as usual I'm the last to know, being sucked too deep into my computer screen and my blog-fascination.

Here's part of what the email tells us about the NEON:

NEON will support systematic study of seven US ecological priorities: invasive species, infectious disease, climate change, land-use change, biogeochemical cycles, biodiversity, and aquatic ecosystems. These elements are reflected in three overarching questions that the Observatory will address:

1. How are ecological systems affected by changes in land use, climate, and biogeochemistry across a range of spatial and temporal scales?
2. How do changes in the availability and distribution of the Nation's water affect ecological systems and what are the feedbacks that in turn affect water resources?
3. How do the patterns and movement of genes and organisms across the continent affect biodiversity, ecosystem function, and the spread of infectious diseases and invasive species?A standardized set of sensor technologies, Biotic survey protocols, and cyberinfrastructure will enable continuous, long-term data collection, storage, and dissemination. NEON will deploy sensors, systemaic biotic sampling, and cyberinfrastructure within 20 distinct climatic domains across the United States (including two distinct domains in Alaska (tundra/taiga), Hawaii/Pacific Tropical, and Atlantic Neotropical). The domain boundaries were determined using a cluster analysis of climate state variables, combined with air mass seasonality data. (For more on the climate domains, see http://www.neoninc.org/archive/2005/08/first_draft_yie_1.html)

Within each domain, infrastructure will be deployed in three land-use/land-cover types: wild, managed, and urbanized, each of which will contain transition zones between terrestrial and aquatic systems. Every NEON site will feature a range of standardized instruments deployed at three fixed locations to provide critical data streams related to the ecological priorities and to sample a suite of key organisms that are sensitive to ecological change. Biotic measurements will be based on sampling of organisms as different as soil microbes and deer mice as well as many forms in between. In addition, mobile capacity will be deployed to enable classic campaign-style investigations and to respond to sudden ecological events, such as the outbreak of an infectious disease.

At its October 17-21, 2005 meeting in Washington, DC, the NNDC focused much attention on the ongoing task of defining the generalized instrument arrays to be deployed in NEON. On the issue of experiments: The NNDC decided that experiments will be described as unique scientific opportunities that are only possible with the NEON infrastructure in place, but that the experiments will not be implemented in the first phase of NEON construction.

On October 18th, the NNDC briefed the NEON Advisory Board and received input from the Board on a range of issues, including design, the climate domain structure, potential experiments, partnership opportunities, and progress toward the final draft of the Integrated Science and Education Plan (ISEP). Drafts of both the ISEP and the Network and Informatics Baseline Design (NIBD) have been submitted to NSF. We are currently revising the ISEP in response to initial input from the Foundation and reviewers from the ecological community.

Early next year we expect to be able to circulate an ISEP that elaborates the specifics of the NEON design. Both documents will undergo independent reviews coordinated by NSF.

Deming and Welch: On Leadership, Quality, and More

I have no idea how history will treat the transformation of General Electric from an aging industrial dinosaur to what we think of it today. Neither do I dare think I know how history will treat GE's long-time CEO Jack Welch, alias Neutron Jack.

Right now, however, both Jack Welsh and W. Edwards Deming are both credited as masters at getting organizations to perform better, moving toward excellence. There are similarities and differences in their approaches. I stumbled onto a comparison yesterday, and decided to share some of it, adding just a bit of my own spin as I go. I am putting this together to aid us as we evaluate both our approach to EMS and our ongoing consideration as to EMS as a path to quality improvement.

Jack Welch's "Strategies" (compiled from here, and here)

1. Embrace change, Don’t' Fear It.
   
2. Stop Managing, Start Leading. There is no substitute for leadership.
   
3. Cultivate Managers Who Share Your Vision.
   
4. Face Reality, Then Act Decisively.
   
5. Be Simple, be Consistent, and Hammer Your Message Home.
   
6. Be Number 1 or Number 2, But Don't Narrow Your Market.
   
7. Look for the Quantum Leap! Then go for it!
   
8. Fix, Close, or Sell—Whatever Isn't First-Rate.
   
9. Don't Focus on the Numbers.
   
10. Always assume that out there, somewhere, somone has a better idea.
    
11. Plagiarize — It's Legitimate: Create a Learning Culture.
    
12. Get Rid of the Managers, Get Rid of the Bureaucracy. Every layer is a bad layer.
    
13. Be lean and agile like a small company. Managing less is managing more.
    
14. Tear Down the Boundaries.
    
15. Three Secrets: Speed, Simplicity, and Self-Confidence.
    
16. Take the "Boss Element" Out of Your Company.
    
17. Create an Atmosphere Where Workers Feel Free to Speak Out. Enabling Fierce Conversations.
    
18. S-t-r-e-t-c-h! Reach for the stars!
    
19. Have Global Brains—and Build Diverse and Global Teams.
    
20. Live Quality: Drive cost and Speed for Competitive Advantage.
    
21. Make Quality Every Employee's "job." There is a better way, find it!
    
22. To Achieve Quality: Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control.
    
23. If You Cannot Rely on an Employee's Integrity, Get Rid of That Employee NOW.
    
24. Energetic People Create Energetic Companies. The opposite is also true.
    
25. The past? Never heard of it!

Different Verison of Jack Welch's Strategiesas sorted out by 1000 ventures.com {Note that this hyperlink give more information on each of the Strategies.}

1. Lead
   
2. Manage Less
   
3. Articulate Your Vision
   
4. Simplify
   
5. Get Less Formal
   
6. Energize Others
   
7. Face Reality, Act Decisively
   
8. See Challenge as an Opportunity
   
9. Get Good Ideas from Everywhere
   
10. Follow Up
    
11. Get rid of bureaucracy
    
12. Eliminate Boundaries
    
13. Put Values First
    
14. Cultivate Leaders
    
15. Create a Learning Organization
    
16. Involve Everyone
    
17. Make Everybody a Team Player
    
18. S-t-r-e-t-c-h!
    
19. Instill Confidence
    
20. Have Fun
    
21. Be No. 1 or No. 2
    
22. Live Quality
    
23. Constantly focus on Innovation
    
24. Live Speed
    
25. Behave Like a Small Company

W.Edwards Deming's "14 Points" (for comparison)

1. Create constancy of purpose for improvement of product and service
   
2. Adopt the new philosophy—of intolerance for poor workmanship and sullen service
   
3. Cease dependence upon mass inspection. Quality is not an outcome of quality control inspections. Rather,quality comes from basic improvement in organizational processes, where workers are enlisted and gain ownership in the process.
   
4. End the practice of awarding business on price-tag alone
   
5. Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service
   
6. Institute Training
   
7. Institute leadership. The job of the supervisor is not to tell people what to do or to punish them but to lead.
   
8. Drive out fear—of change, of being victims in the blame game, etc.
   
9. Break down barriers between staff areas, etc.
   
10. Eliminate slogans, exhortation, and targets
    
11. Eliminate numerical quotas
    
12. Remove barriers to pride of workmanship
    
13. Institute a Vigorous Program of Education and Retraining
    
14. Take action to accomplish the transformation. It will take a top management team with a plan of action to jump-start the quality revolution. Thereafter, top management must commit themselves completely to the task of overseeing the revolution. Workers can't do it on their own, nor can managers. A critical mass of people in the company must understand the Fourteen Points as well as the Seven Deadly Diseases.

I view Welch's approach to be tough-love Deming, perchance better suited to the cultural rigidity of many US large industrial and governmental organizations. Deming's approach is one more geared for organizations ready to step up to the responsibilities of managing as adult communities. Either way, the organizations that come from living these strategies are far different from those many of us live in today.

Whiskey Jack Forest and A Simpler Way

Yesterday I Googled up an effort in Canada that ties a Forest Environmental Management System (FEMS) to local sustainable forest management indicators. It looks much like what I'd expect us to do if we tied our EMSs to much-talked-about "Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Development" approach we've been grappling with in the US. Here's a link to the effort on Whiskey Jack forest. {Note that the "Sustainable Forest Management Plan" is the most relevant thing on this page, but is a very large pdf. So if you view it, give yourself some time for a download. Hint: open in a separate window.}

Local Level Sustainable Forest Management Indicators are embedded in the former pdf, and also more fully developed in a [pdf] available here. {Note: This pdf is fairly large as well}

I'm fearful of these highly detailed approaches. I fear that if we try to jump into this water all at once, we'll be swept downstream, never really even knowing what hit us. It reminds me of a story I heard about Jack Welch' vetoing W. Edward Deming's approach at GE because it was too complicated for them. Deming's approach is dirt simple relative to this stuff. I fear that it may be all one grand-scale 'paper chase.'

A Simpler Way

What I'd rather see us do is to develop a system that at once conforms to ISO standards but also allows us to grow our way into a simpler-way to monitoring and evaluation.

I'd love to see a system that used indicators as simple at the famed Chesapeake Bay "tennis shoe indicator" complimented with more rigorous measurements that are developed more by FS and other researchers than by NFS and national forest/districts. I'd love to see a system that begins (using an automobile example) by attempting to design horse-drawn carriages, then moves to horseless carriages, and in about a hundred years (hopefully 20 instead) moves more to the type automobiles we enjoy today.

I'd love a system that lets a district ranger or forester supervisor say that they want a grazing-systems indicator of, say, "no dirt in the creek." I'd love an open system that would allow someone else to counter with, "I like dirt in the creek, but only when it is due to appropriate trammeling by grazing animals that will break down high stream-banks that have been caused by over-grazing and other ecosystem degrading practices. I like dirt in the creek, but only when it travels only short distances, doesn't completely bury vegetative structure, then helps to build up the steam bottom to compliment stream-bank trammeling."

I'd love to see a system that allows for this type give-and-take across the fences of the back forty, on the tailgate of pickup trucks, in the barroom, and in the coffee shop so that we can gain better perspectives about ecology, economy, society, Nature and more. I'd love to see a system that allows for both approaches, set up in an environment where we can experiment, can learn.

I fear instead that we will once-again create the type over-complexified procedural paper chase that we've had for so long in our planning culture, in our performance accountability and targets culture, and in many other bureaucratic culture forms. I fear that we'll set up systems of tight targeting, monitoring, and correction that disallow the kind of experimentation necessary to stay ahead of changing environments, changing societies, etc.

Can we get there? Is there a simpler way available to us? Will we fight for it? We'll see.

First Steps In R4

In our Region, we are committed to tying our initial EMSs tightly to our Forest Plan Revisions (with some possible add-ons for a very few program areas that want to be 'early adaptors'). This means that we are going to take our largely aspirational deired conditions, along with objectives, guidelines, suitability determinations, and special area designations, etc. and somehow tie them to the various components of EMS.

Later, as we begin implementing the plans, developing sub plans, and so on we'll put some flesh on the 'bare bones' of our initial effort. We are approaching this in stages, both because it makes sense to feel out way through the mazes of EMS compliance, and because we are trying to get our first forests draft EMS packages done in the next three months, by February 2006.

The first trick will be to take our desired conditions statements, etc. and see how we crosswalk them into EMS. If we had been working more diligently on or forest plan monitoring and evaluation, and draft plan approval rationales we might have a less arduous task ahead. But alas I'm afraid that we haven't been doing this. Perhaps we'll know more as to whether this approach makes sense after our Forests meeting Nov. 14-16.

In the meantime I will be searching around trying to figure out what other Regions are trying, and asking them to help us with that search by telling ALL here just what they think might work. Let's work together to design a system so that we (we the people) can learn, can experiment, can play.

Environmental Aspects: 'Systems Management' Focus

{ Updated Nov. 7 }

Why not try to approach 'environmental aspects' and other aspects of EMS in as simple a fashion as possible? That way we can start small, focused tightly on what we generally do, then build the system gradually outward toward specific authority/responsibility matches (and more detail) as we more fully flesh-out our EMS, Planning, assessment and other systems in the next few years.

Building from R1's stuff, including, FSM categoreis, I threw together a preliminary list of programmatic systems. It is well known that you can't effectively manage systems unless and until you have explicit, if fuzzy models of those systems. So maybe we can begin with 'systems,' then try to distill aspects, impacts, controls, etc. from them, rather that starting with FSM categories and trying to get to aspects that way.

Note that I grouped things to help facilitate more lumping--I'd prefer to err on the too lumpy side of the divide rather than the too-complex side.

Let me know if you think this has merit, and also any specific recommendations/enhancements, etc. that you think of.

Trial Programmatic Systems List

Roads Systems (including bridges)
Trails Systems (including bridges)

Potable Water Systems
Irrigation Water Systems (including Dams)
Sewage Treatment Systems

Timber Sales Management System
Vegetation Treatment for Timber Stand Improvement Systems

Fire Suppression Systems
Fuels Treatment Systems (to reduce fuel-loading)

Rangeland Improvement Systems
Rangeland Allotment Management Systems

OHV Management and Control Systems
Scenery Management Systems
Recreation Visitors 'Ecological Footprint' Management Systems (Maybe?)
Wilderness Management Systems
Wild and Scenic Rivers Management Systems

T & E Habitat Conservation Systems
Species of Concern/Interest Conservation Systems
Biology Diversity Conservation/Enhancement Systems

Environmental Management (Solid Wastes, Pesticide use, Hazardous Materials, Energy)
Engineering Operations (Fleet management, Buildings and others structures, etc.)

Hard Rock Minerals Exploration/Development Management Systems
Oil and Gas Management Systems
Energy and Power Corridor Management Systems

Invasive Species Management Systems

Land Exchange Management Systems

---

Stewardship Contracting Systems (This is probably a mis-fit)

Soil Conservation Systems?
Air Quality Systems?

Working Toward a Master List of Environmental Aspects/Impacts

Brad Burmark promised to share R5's Environmental Aspects/Impacts and more. In the meantime several of us have opined that there is likely a shared list of probable aspects and potential impacts that we might all draw from in working toward "Significance" and other matters..

Here is a start, cobbled together from stuff from R1 including FS Manual titles, activities, and impacts. Errors of transcription, or out-of-dateness, etc. are mine along. These are no doubt very preliminary stabs at what we might want. That's why I called it a start. (These might compliment Burmark's or might save Brad some work if these are similar in content and format.) Note: R1 tiers from FSM codes/titles to activities, impacts, etc. I'd like to craft a link to the spreadsheet but I don't yet know where it is, other than attached to an email.

Is this a right track to begin on? What vision of "Purpose and Scope of EMS," "Environmental Policy." "Objectives and Targets," "Operational Controls," etc. need we have in mind as we grapple with "activities, products and services,"environmental aspects," "environmental impacts," and other stuff from ISO 140001? [pdf - ISO 41001 - available to FS Intranet users only] How do we begin? I'm struggling.

Activities from R1 list, listed here independent of FSM categories:

Herbicide spraying
Biological controls
Mechanical [treatment] methods
Allotment mgt plans
Permit issuance
Improvements
Timber harvest
Disaster relief - incl. salvage
Free use of timber
Forest products
Reforestation
TSI - thinning,etc
Road Construction
Road Reconstruction
Road Maintenance
Road Decommission
Trail Construction
Trail Reconstruction
Bridges and Structures
Access Management

Impacts listed independent of activities (bunched together and arranged alphabetically, sort of)

Aquatic impacts
Fuel reduction
Human health
Forest products
Range products
Public uses
Riparian systems
Soils
Native vegetation
Vegetation
Wildlife
Fisheries

Continue below for R1's FSM Titles list

Poking Fun at Problem Solving and EMS Support

CAUTIONARY NOTE: TO CLOSE THESE POWER POINT SHOWS--Hit "Esc" or Right Click, then follow instructions

Here is a Power Point of a Bureaucratic Problem-Solving Flowchart (right click when done) that floated around the Forest Service many years ago, and then again more recently. Ron Brunner, who teaches public policy at Colorado, said this little show tells more about the reasons problems are 'buried' or 'sat on' in bureaus than anything else he has seen.

And here’s another Power Point for something you’ve probably seen in another setting, titled Support Your Local EMS.

Both 'shows' may load up slowly, so be patient.

ENJOY!

Thoughts on Public Outreach and Information Systems

On the National EMS conference call yesterday I heard talk of Region 2 public outreach for EMS. That is a move in the right direction, as I understand the NFMA Rule. In my reading, the collaboration mandates of the 2005 Rule do not bypass any EMS we may establish. The Rule requires our EMS to include "the land management process." This reading is why I believe that forest plan evaluation and monitoring will be addressed in the EMS as well, adding a findings of significant aspects, etc. to whatever we might have otherwise envisioned E & M. We have our work cut out for us, in order to make our work meaningful and ever-better while not once-again over promising and under delivering which will keep us in court battle Hell.

I also heard talk of setting up an intranet repository for EMS documents, spreadsheets, etc. This brings up an interesting predicament. The Data Quality Act requires that our methods, data, etc. be open to inspection, suggesting internet data and information systems. Why would we have both? Sure we’ll be exposing some half-baked stuff to public spotlights, but that might help the public better understand the complex and emergent nature of our work. It might actually help us tell our story instead of hindering us, as many likely believe. I maintain that personnel records, some archeological records, etc. ought to be the stuff of our intranet and all else ought to live in an open fishbowl of public access and engagement.

Last week I was discussing our penchant for secrecy with Steve Ruddell at our EMS training. I noted that public interest groups are always suspicious of our secrecy. Collaboration practitioners often lampoon such secrecy as Jack in the Box public involvement—where a government agency holds a public meeting, plays some music prior to popping out of box to announce something, then gathers information and feedback, only to go back into the box and pop out later to repeat the process. I think that open is better. What do you think?

Minor quibble: While we are addressing inter- v. intranet, I might as well air a concern that came to mind recently. I noticed that some files now stored in team rooms are labeled “proprietary,” owned by some of our contractors but made available to government employees via special agreement. I suspect there are moral, if not legal questions associated with the keeping of so-called proprietary information on government data storage systems. I wonder how such will fare in the court of public opinion? In the court under FOIA? Maybe what we are doing on this front is fine and good, but at least we ought to talk about it. Why not have the contractors store such on their sites, and find means of allowing some restricted access?

EMS: Quality Improvement or Next Big Mess?

Last Tuesday I was on a panel discussion at our Regional Environmental Management System (EMS) workshop. I suggested that the Forest Service has a long, tortured history of moving from the last big mess to the next big mess. Perhaps the biggest policy mess in my career has been capital "P" Planning. We were among the last of big organizations to wade into comprehensive rational planning, thinking it would solve all our problems. Remember how planning was going to give us a "get out of project level NEPA free" card? Remember how it was going to give us a 5-10 year sales schedule? Remember??? Now we are entering into the realm of EMS as if it is going to be the next saving grace or organizational fix. I think we ought to proceed with caution. We don’t want EMS to turn into the Next Big Mess (NBM).

I also suggested that EMS might be a chance to move from the last big opportunity to the next big opportunity. Planning is indeed a big opportunity (if an opportunity lost on the FS). Royal Dutch Shell and others champion scenario planning, where the object is to do two simple tasks: 1) rehash the past, and 2) rehearse the future. The idea is to hone skills in planning games, so that as the universe unfolds in daily organizational life we can be ready to practice adaptive management and organizational learning.

This may be considered a planning opportunity lost, so far, by the Forest Service. We hatched Planning in the FS as comprehensive, rational planning and although we are slouching toward scenario planning we have not yet arrived. Now it may be that we are taking all the front-loaded details of comprehensive rational planning and packing them into the rear end of the adaptive management process. If so, we’ll over-emphasize that part of the process just like we did with the planning part earlier.

I worried aloud to the group about the framing of EMS, promising so much; too much? I held up a copy of Margaret Wheatley and Myron Kellner-Rogers' A Simpler Way, suggesting that we need to keep a keen eye on finding simpler means to work and live in complex social and environmental systems.

I left two Wheatley articles with the group. The first, Bringing Life to Organizational Change, highlights why change efforts often fail, as well as how and why some succeed. The second, What do We Measure and Why? is a guide to meaningful feedback in organizations where individuals and groups take responsibility for their own contributions to the whole without the need for carrots and sticks. A third article, which I didn’t hand out, is titled When Change is Out of Control and highlights quality improvement in organizations that have abandoned the planning/control model.

Finally I left the audience with the notion captured in this Oliver Wendell Homes quote, "I wouldn’t give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I’d give my life for the simplicity on the far side of complexity." If we once-again overcomplicate any aspect of adaptive management/organizational learning, then we will indeed have created the next big mess. On the other hand, if we over-simplify on the near side of complexity, we’ll have indeed laid the foundation for the next big mess as well. Challenges….

To punctuate these ideas, we might want to spend some time (in another post or series of posts) exploring the fits and misfits of quality improvement efforts and organizational culture. Over the weekend I found Total Quality Management as a Cultural Phenonemon [pdf]. One quote: "Many researchers are pessimistic about radically managed change in organizational culture…." Why? I believe it has to do, among other things, with organizational defense mechanisms. Organizations have many means to ward off perceived threats to the status quo. We must be careful not to dismiss the importance of cultural framing in our talk and action moving forward with EMS.