Skip to main content

How to Make the Big Decisions

The North Branch Land Trust, a small northeast Pennsylvania, has the sort of problem many charities might like to wrestle with. The Trust owns a wildlife sanctuary that sits on a natural gas deposit, a deposit that could be quite valuable. What to do? Allow access to the land for drilling and make money to expand? Do they stick strictly to their environmental stewardship mission in every way and hope things work out in the end? Is there another option?

I don’t know what North Branch Land Trust needs to do in this case. I DO know about some tools that could lead to a better decision.

There are huge stakes in a decision like this one. An intuitive approach to making the right choice might not give the best results. There are techniques for evaluating decisions. I’d like to mention three of those methods and show how they can apply to decisions like the one North Branch Land Trust faces.

First, consider all of the factors involved in a decision to allow natural gas drilling. There are political, economic, ecological, and legal aspects to the decision. All you need to do is to take a look at each aspect of the decision in turn. That’s not so different from what you would normally do in making a decision. The point here is to add some structure to the process. This is one of Edward De Bono’s many thinking tools, called CAF for Consider All Factors.

Second, consider the potential impact of your decision to allow natural gas drilling. This process is similar to that first evaluation technique except that you are trying to project the consequences into the future instead of thinking about relevant factors today.

Lateral thinking guru Edward De Bono invented a technique for projecting the consequences of an action into the future. He called it Consequence & Sequel (C&S). You’ll have to read De Bono’s Thinking Course for a thorough explanation of the technique. My copy seems to have walked away, so I can’t offer a proper summary here.

Finally, you can take a decision – “Allow natural gas drilling” and evaluate the good points of the idea, the bad points and the interesting points. Edward De Bono offers a technique called Plus-Minus-Interesting that formalizes what I just explained. The point is to spend a few minutes each on the good, the bad, and the stuff that’s not obviously good or bad.

You can find CAF, C&S, and PMI described in De Bono’s Thinking Course. Look for a used copy online or go to a large public library and check out a copy. Read the book and do the exercises. When you have to make, or help make, another big decision for your organization De Bono’s techniques will help.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to Crowdsource and Experiment Our Way to a Fairer Economy

Economic and social inequality should be treated as design challenges that, like designs in architecture or packaging can be solved by applying some creative thinking. That's hardly a new idea, but the recession and ongoing concerns about economic inequality make crowdsourcing seem like something worth talking about.  Crowdsourcing as an Economic Justice Tool: Most people have an idea of what  crowdsourcing is and how it works - you let a group work on your problem or challenge and see what they produce. Can they produce a better answer (whatever that means) than an expert or a small group of experts? You can't answer that question until you have some real-world examples to draw upon. That's where social experiments and simulations can prove useful. Maybe there should be specific crowdsourcing projects and a place to organize all of them. We could start crowdsourcing campaigns around a range of topics: New ways of using barter to meet peoples' needs Using buying co...

Setting Good Social Change Goals: The Problem of Police Brutality

No one in the United States can say they are totally ignorant of the issues surrounding last week's death of Black Minneapolis resident George Floyd at the hands of a police officer. This post is not about the incident, which has been covered in great depth by others. This post is about setting goals to pursue in the wake of Floyd's high-profile death.  What do protestors want, exactly? This is probably unknowable right now. Sure, they call for justice or for an end to police brutality, maybe in those exact words. Each one of those goals has a huge problem. Let's see why. What does justice look like exactly? Will you know when justice has been served? Theoretically, some felony convictions for the involved officers would work. Right? Maybe.  The goal of ending police brutality is far more problematic. How can we ever achieve a state of affairs where no cop ever abuses any suspect? That is what an end to police brutality might look like. Achieving perfection is a bit too amb...

A Technique for Generating Fundraising Ideas

I’ll return to the subject of strategic planning for nonprofits later. For now, I want to introduce another technique for generating ideas, for fundraising, planning, program design, advocacy, and other things. The Filament Technique was created by Edward De Bono, guru of creative thinking, and described in Serious Creativity . The technique is pretty easy to understand so I will just jump into demonstrating it with a nonprofit example. We start by defining a creative focus. In this case I want to focus to securing donations. You could also focus on fundraising generally or on another aspect of fundraising. The process is exactly the same. Having decided on the creative focus of “securing donations” I next need to list some of the normal requirements of securing donations. Here is my list: Potential donors Compelling case for donations Printed materials Objectives Note that those requirements are kept pretty broad. That was done on purpose. The list above is meant to be an illustrati...