|
Goal setting The goal setting phase of
the intervention consists of reviewing the information forthcoming from the
data collection process, identifying and exploring possible goals, and setting
priorities of clear, specific goals. Goal setting is the launching pad for
thoughtful and manageable action planning - it needs to be solidly in place
before the action planning can begin. Most planning groups find it very
difficult to separate goal setting from action planning as an examination of
the feasibility or practicability of the goals implementation helps to
determine if the goal is attainable. And if the goal is really not attainable,
why then select it as a priority. The information coming from
an Interest or Problem Census or a SWOT Analysis moves a group quickly into
exploring the issues that have been identified and framing then into goals.
Often this framing means changing the problem statement which is a solution to
a goal which identifies the problem or interest. Thus, "getting more
government funding for our community" may become "expanding our
programs and services with-out increasing taxes." The latter framing
suggests that present monies may be redistributed, cost cutting efficiencies
found and implemented or a variety of sources of new, outside funding be
explored. Often half of the problems surfacing from an Interest Census are in
fad suggested solutions and need to be reworked to clarify the goal.
Brainstorming Probably the most useful
technique to promote creative thinking and to free up and surface dreams and
visions is brainstorming.
Stakeholders usually in a group, are asked to think up
all the possible goals coming out of the data that they can. As the ideas are
called out by the participants, the facilitator lists them on newsprint or on
overhead so everyone can see them. The essential rule is that no evaluation or
reaction to the ideas is permissible. Thus very creative ideas often emerge.
Inhibitions are freed to mention possibly crazy or unrealistic ideas,
participants are stimulated by the ideas of others and a different level of
thinking takes place. Brainstorming's non-evaluative climate clearly separates
the generation of ideas from the assessment of their feasibility and general
worth.
Goal Evaluation During the goal evaluation process the focus is to
make suggested goals:
Thus a fuzzy goal such as "to improve people's
health" would be sharpened to read "to establish sound physical
health practices with children and youth." It would be made more specific
and measurable by adding "To provide a routine and expectations for at
least 30 minutes of exercise, three times a week." Further evaluation of the
goals would compare their strengths and weaknesses through a force field
analysis or the pro-con technique. The force field has been described on pp.
18-19 and the pro-con asks stake-holders to list everything in favour of a
course of action, and then every-thing against it. When long lists of factors are
identified they can be ranked or rated on their importance. The method I most
frequently use is to give everyone three votes for the most important strengths
and three for the most important weaknesses. This has the effect of giving a
rapid and manageable ranking of the items that is quite reliable.
Setting Priorities Selecting goals for action planning and implementation
is a process of setting priorities rather than discarding many of the goals. It
may be that low priority goals this year will change in importance and be high
priority goals another time. The important considerations in selection are:
By desirability I mean the value or importance that
would be placed on the change the goal implies. For example, in a rural
community would it be more important to provide uncontaminated drinking water,
educate mothers on nutritional requirements of new born children, or introduce
more effective farming practices? Looking at the feasibility it's clear that 2 or 3
community wells could provide adequate water and if the means of digging or
drilling and maintaining them was available, they would be very feasible.
Educating mothers on nutritional needs might be feasible if the educational
programs or health educators were available and foods or diet supplements
required for the newborn could be found at low cost. The modification of
farming practices with the introduction of new methods would require a change
in the 'usual way of doing things'—a difficult accomplishment at best. It might
also require the new seed, fertilizer, equipment or land drainage or irrigation
that make up the new practices. The likely outcomes are a combination of the
sustaining forces for the new activities vs. the restraining forces or risks
involved. Predicting the probability of an outcome is a mutually exclusive
process. Only one out-come is possible. That is why the percentages you give to
the best possible outcome and the worst possible outcome should add up to one
hundred. This is not to suggest that risky goals should be eliminated but
rather that it should be an informed decision making process. Perhaps the major
difference between doing something fool-hardy and something courageous is
making the decision on the basis of thoughtful consideration of risks and
possibilities. The final choice of priorities can be assisted through
the use of ranking, rating or weighting techniques. Ranking asks the
stakeholders to list the goals in order of preference considering their
desirability, feasibility and likely outcome. The choices are collated and the
average rank for each goal established and reported back. The three votes
method described on the previous page is a short form of this method. Rating
asks stakeholders to give a preference to each goal on a scale such as 1 very
important, 2 fairly important or 3 not too important. The results are collated
in the same way showing average ratings and reported to the stakeholders. Using
the weighting technique asks participants to assume they have ten units that
they can assign to the suggested goals, depending on their perceived
preference. All units can be given to one goal or they can be divided into
preferences for up to ten goals (no partial unit allocations allowed). The
results are summarized showing group averages and presented to the stakeholders
for their final choices of priorities. All of these priority
setting techniques are very scientific and objective. My experience suggests
that while these techniques are often helpful their is
another element which I call political reality that can easily be the real
basis for selection. Interveners should not be discouraged by these politically
based choices of priorities but try to be up front themselves
and help the stakeholders be straightforward about the basis of their goal
choices. ... Next Section - Action Planning
|