Genesis of TLAM
Coaches Workshop…
…and the road getting from
there to Arizona!
General Experience

Decades of working with managers to develop studies—how to
start?
◦ What decision do you need to make?
◦ What do you need to know about the human dimensions of a
management system?

Comments heard around the country—“we had the study done,
got the report, but we don’t know how to use it.”

Uncounted meetings where people assume everyone is
working off the same assumptions, but in reality they are not,
leading to confusion and inefficiency.

Program Models in CCE—needed to have program articulated
before an evaluation could be designed
Observations and Comments from
“Insiders”

NYS DEC—35 years of interactions

Colorado sabbatical—1991-92

NPS study leave and sabbatical 2003 & 2007

FWC study leave—2006

Interactions with colleagues (Carpenter—CDOW &
WMI, Organ—USFWS, Riley—Montana FW & Parks)
Beliefs

Professionalism requires a manager to be explicit, analytic,
and articulate.

Professionalism calls for critique, which requires a
management situation to be presented in a coherent fashion.

Professional wildlife managers typically not encouraged to
improve the rigor of management systems thinking.

Managers often are acculturated into an atmosphere where
“action” is emphasized.

Working with professionals to design one study at a time was
not achieving HD integration quickly enough. Need a better
way to build capacity within organizations.
Common Barriers

Oversimplification of management problem
◦ Treating “wicked” problems as merely complex

Action bias
◦ Moving straight to action without first defining clear
objectives
◦ Exclusive focus on actions to affect biological or ecological
dimensions

Scale confusion—not explicitly defining:
◦ The scales of problem components (both ecological and
human dimensions)
◦ The operational scale of management response

Stakeholder neglect
◦ Emphasis on SH’s who are concerned with means vs. those
affected by ends
5
Oversimplification:
Treating “Wicked” Problems as Simply Complex

Complex Problems
◦ Well-defined problems in systems that always respond in
the same way

“Wicked” or “Messy” Problems
◦ High level of complexity and scientific uncertainty
◦ Social conflicts over goals and appropriate forms of
resolution
◦ Interdependence among problem elements
6
Action bias

Moving straight to action without first defining clear objectives

Exclusive focus on actions to affect biological or ecological
dimensions—missing opportunities for affecting HD
components of the system

Action can only be considered after problem elements are
identified (i.e., after the problem has been framed)

Taking action may generate collateral impacts; that is, impacts
related to the action itself—potential to be blindsided by other
interrelated elements if not considered a priori

Collateral impacts may activate a second set of stakeholders

Further actions may be needed to mitigate collateral impacts
A management paradox
Two sets of stakeholders (SH’s) are affected by management:
Type 1: SH’s concerned
with ends; intended effects
of management concern
Type 2: SH’s concerned
with means; collateral
impacts created by the
management intervention
1: SH’s
affected by
resource
2: SH’s affected by
management actions
These two groups may overlap, but some SH’s may be
concerned only with ends OR means, not both.
8
Management Environment
(Spheres of Effect)
Scale confusion:
Clarity of expectations for
scale at which effects of
management action will be
felt (physically and
psychologically)
Stakeholder neglect:
National
Regional
Local
WMA
1: SH’s
affected by
resource
2: SH’s affected by
management actions
Action bias emphasizes
Type 2 stakeholders, which
can lead to conflict between
Type 1 SH, Type 2 SH, and
managers
9
Specific Experience


Peer Legitimization: Essence and AIM papers
Outreach:
◦ TLAM book
◦ MM Pilot and Development Efforts:
 NPS Disease mgt system (HDW)
 Florida Black Bear program
 Acadia NP deer mgt
◦ FWC requests broader assistance
◦ Design & pilot TLAM coaches workshop for FWC (2007) revised
& held 2nd workshop for FWC (2008) 3rd planned for January
2010.
◦ Two efforts in NY: BB mgmt and deer hunting mgt
◦ Trainings for WAFWA (at CSU 2008 and Estes Park 2009)leads
to AGFD Nongame Program workshop today!
Concluding Observations

Ecological and human considerations interact in all parts of
the manager’s model

Oversimplification of problem framing affects potential
solutions
◦ Action bias, scale confusion, and stakeholder neglect can
impact problem framing

Efforts to understand human dimensions are a fundamental
part of effective management
11
Manager’s Model—Where does it fit?
Questions, observations or
comments?