The crucial role of objectives in the eight steps of management

Soon after starting my graduate studies with Bill Taylor in January of 1984, I (DH) served as a teaching assistant in his Fisheries Management class. I had not had a course in fisheries management prior to this, but one thing that struck me early on was what Bill termed “the eight steps of management”. In this essay we will elaborate on the importance of the objective setting step, but we will also want to emphasize the legacy this has left. All of my students have been indoctrinated with Taylor's eight steps, and most have gone on to careers in natural resource management. They have often come back to me lamenting how frequently the lack of objectives has hindered management efforts, particularly when collaborative efforts are undertaken.What are the eight steps? Essentially this is a process for approaching a management problem (Figure 1). One of the key features is that this is a sequential process where each step needs to be addressed before moving on. Another key feature, however, is that it is an iterative process, and constraints or changes at a later step may require going back and revising a previous step. Finally, the process is circular in the sense that maintaining a fishery in a desired state involves revisiting the process periodically. The roots of Taylor's eight steps are unclear, but it is worth noting that other authors in the fisheries field and other disciplines have also outlined a similar approach to management.The first step, Goal Setting, is often straight forward as this provides broad directions. Goals such as “provide good fishing” or “promote a healthy environment” are examples, and are often easy to develop by consensus. The second step, Evaluate the Situation, is a step that much of the technical training we provide to students is geared toward. Sampling populations and habitats, understanding the ecology of a system, and synthesizing available information are activities that fisheries biologists are trained to do. Step three is Objective Setting, which we will return to in greater depth. Once objectives are established, proposing a management Prescription also falls within the realm of a typical fisheries management education. Once these conceptual steps are completed, the operational phase begins with Organizing the necessary resources and Implementing any actions. Once implemented, implicit is some degree of monitoring to Evaluate the results or outcomes of the action that was undertaken. Lastly, one either Maintain efforts if the results are acceptable or goes back to an earlier phase to adjust if necessary. In this way, Dr. Taylor's approach was similar to many other adaptive approaches to resource management (e.g. Walters, 1975; etc. etc.)As with many other iterative processes, each step can the thought of as a link in a chain and any break along the way can result in failure to reach intended management outcomes. It is important to note, however, that early steps lay the foundation for later steps, and as such have a cascading effect on the entire process and ultimate success or failure. Objectives play a pivotal role in the eight steps of management as they make the desired outcome(s) explicit, thereby setting the benchmarks for success or for adjusting management prescriptions. If objectives are not explicitly stated in a quantifiable manner or are not provided at all, this sets the stage for disagreement about whether management has been successful or not.We have encountered a number of reasons why objectives are so difficult to set. One reason is that many people don't recognize what constitutes a “good” objective. A common framework for evaluating whether the objectives that are set are “good” is the SMART guideline (Doran 1981). If an objective is SMART, it is Specific, Measurable, Achievable (or realistic), Related to Goal or Relevant, and Time constrained. We will walk through an example to illustrate how this guideline can be applied.As a starting point, assume that we have a goal of developing good fishing in Park Lake where currently there is a large population of stunted bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), but a modest number of quality sized largemouth bass (Micropterus nigricans). In our experience, such a vague goal is something that is readily agreed upon, but the next step of creating objectives to operationalize such a goal is what is difficult. What exactly is “good fishing”? Does it mean better fishing for larger bluegill, or would the focus be more on fewer, but larger bass? Since the preference of individual anglers varies, the objective likely needs to be developed via some consensus. We will talk about the challenges that consensus building poses later in this essay, but for the time being assume we have developed a preliminary objective that we want to examine through the lens of the SMART guideline. A starting objective might be that we want to have a high Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) of largemouth greater than 380 mm (approximately 15 inches). Is this objective SMART? Although this objective is related to the goal and it is somewhat specific, the term ‘high’ is still unclear. CPUE is measurable, but without more information, we are uncertain if ‘high’ is measurable in a quantifiable context. This example objective also lacks a time frame: in our work with fishery managers, anglers, and fishers the first iteration of objectives often lack one or more SMART attributes and require additional effort to turn them into SMART objective(s).In our hypothetical example, we might go through several iterations (which often require painful choices) to get to a more refined objective such as: “achieve a minimum average CPUE for bluegill of 0.25/hr by 2030 via a minimum size regulation of 280 mm”. Is this objective specific – yes; is it measurable – yes; is it realistic – let's assume yes; is it time constrained – yes; is it related to the goal – mostly. What we observe with this objective is that it meets all the criteria of a SMART objective except that it blends a management approach (setting a size regulation) with the objective.However, there are issues with blending a management objective with a management action, and we have observed that this is a common issue with objective setting in applied settings. It is worth noting that implementing a particular management prescription is NOT an objective in and of itself, but rather is a tool to accomplish a specific outcome. The issue of blending an objective with a management action is that it unnecessarily constrains the process of evaluating potential options for managing the fishery. In this case, an alternative may be to focus on the management or removal of largemouth bass as a predator instead of simply implementing a minimum size on bluegill.As this example illustrates, there are a number of details that need to be agreed upon in setting an objective. What is the minimum average CPUE that is desirable? Is 0.25 fish per hour enough, or should it be 0.275? Similarly, is a target date of 2030 reasonable, or will this take longer? Hammering out such details in a group setting is challenging as many of these choices are somewhat arbitrary and based on people's values more than on empirical data. We would also argue that the skill set for developing consensus in a group setting is something that is often lacking in traditional training for fishery biologists. Even with training, this process can be difficult.A final reason, that may be rare but can be particularly frustrating, is that some participants may not want specific objectives as this can set up the process for failure. Put another way, avoiding having good objectives is a way to avoid accountability.Dan Hayes has been involved in the development of several management plans with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, most recently with the inland walleye management plan. Working with a former student, Seth Herbst, who also recognizes the importance of objective setting, we were able to facilitate the development of SMART objectives across multiple dimensions of walleye management for the inland waters of Michigan. In the course of setting objectives for this plan, a couple of lessons from Bill Taylor were of particular value. First, communicating clearly what our expectations were (i.e., what elements constitute a SMART objective) in our opinion helped bring people to a common vision.Secondly, we employed a strategy that Bill Taylor called “the power of the pen”. In this strategy, we held brain-storming sessions to develop a list of potential elements to include in our set of objectives. The next step, however, was to take a lead on developing draft objectives that we knew would not be the final step, nor were we attached to, but with the goal of giving the group something tangible to work from. Our experience has been that until something is written down, groups are prone to spin wheels covering ground that has already been discussed, focus on broad philosophical issues that do not lead directly to an objective, or focus on details of management prescription or implementation that are steps that should follow objective setting. By having a set of objectives written down, the group can focus its attention toward refining objectives. A key to this is to not get attached to the content of the objectives so the group is given the freedom to refine or recast the objectives without the hindrance of personal ego and ownership getting in the way.Although my (JS) relationship with Bill was not nearly as close as Dan's, I am still strongly influenced by Bill's teachings on ‘how to be successful’ which I think of as the precursor to ‘the eight steps of management’. I use this teaching every day in my role as the Great Lakes Fisheries Assessment Biologist for the Bay Mills Indian Community. Bill took a quote from either Watson or Crick and turned it into a goal and SMART(ish) objectives. The goal is simply to be ‘successful in the natural resources field’. Objective one is to ‘surround yourself with people smarter than you’ (possibly Watson/Crick were referring to Rosalind Francis). ‘Smarter’ is a bit challenging to define and measure, but I have taken it to mean fill out your team with people who are smart in many different ways. This would include folks who are quantitative, those who can ‘fix or do anything’ and especially those long-term knowledge holders. Second, Bill said we should ‘take on projects no one believes you are ready for’. Again, this objective is a bit hard to measure, but in practice I believe Bill was saying ‘Aim High!’. To honor this objective, I have tried to create at least one project every year that my Tribal agency had never done in the past. Finally, Bill cautions us that we need to have ‘at least one person who believes in us’. I have been very fortunate to have many people who believed in me on this fun but challenging journey including my wife and mother who thought it was a great idea for me to quit my job and go back to school at age 40, Daniel Hayes who changed my life through his mentorship and friendship, and Wasson Dillard who was kind enough to be my cultural teacher as I attempted to navigate the path of a Tribal biologist. Miigwech to all of them and to Bill for inspiring me to continue down this path.I (Cahill) was not trained by Taylor or Hayes, but the importance of setting SMART objectives as they relate to improving resource management extends beyond these individuals and is now well-established. For example, the issue of using SMART objectives is critical in the types of resource management problems that I work on as a stock assessment scientist, where age-structured models are used to provide management advice on a large variety of harvesting problems (see Quinn and Deriso 1999). Examples of ‘SMART’ objectives also appeared early on in the fisheries literature related to designing feedback policies (Walters, 1975) and the development of adaptive management programs (Walters and Hilborn, 1978), though they often went by “performance criteria” or more simply “objectives” vs. ‘SMART objectives’ per se. Similar ideas and concepts can now be found in the PrOACT structured decision making framework, which specifies a tiered approach that identifies a Problem, establishes explicit Objective(s) and measures via consensus, defines Alternatives, Consequences, and Tradeoffs (Robinson et al. 2023). A common thread among all of these approaches is simply that well-defined objectives provide clarity and focus to resource management problems, which in turn help managers and analysts prioritize key tasks, and ultimately helps align stakeholders and Rightsholders by creating a clear vision for resource management.Throughout his long career, Bill Taylor has had a large influence on the field of fisheries management. Much of this influence has been through the planting of seeds of thought in the students and professionals he has worked with. These thoughts have spread widely through the network he has built, and which is described in more detail in this volume.