Scoping Canvas¶
This scoping exercise will help you better understand the problem context and kick-start the process of identifying solutions. This is best done together in person, if possible, and typically requires at least an hour but can take half a day or more, depending on how invested you are in building out the Situation Model (feel free to sub in a systems map or journey map if preferred). If you've already developed some of these elements, great! Bring along a copy and start with a quick review.
Find a large whiteboard and divide it up into sections as illustrated below (don't label each box as large as shown below, you'll need room to write). You can also find an editable version of this scoping canvas here. Instructions for filling in each section are provided below.
Instructions¶
Work through the sections in approximately this order, but don't hesitate to jump around if that's where the conversation flows.
Scope¶
A project’s scope defines what the project intends to affect. “Place-based” projects have a geographic scope and include efforts to conserve or effectively manage ecoregions, priority areas, or protected areas. “Thematic-based” projects include efforts to address specific conservation targets, threats, opportunities, or enabling conditions and generally have a corresponding thematic scope. Thematic-based projects may also define a geographic scope that spatially describes a project area and might reference specific elements of biodiversity or a specific threat. (CMP 2013).
I recommend erring on the inclusive side here. You will continue to get more specific throughout this process, for now try to represent the entire problem space. The scope should include the scope for the program, not just the specific tactic, tool, or feature you're considering.
Vision¶
In addition to defining the scope, it is also necessary to decide on a clear and common vision – a description of the desired state or ultimate condition that you are working to achieve. Your vision can be summarized in a vision statement, which meets the criteria of being relatively general, visionary, and brief. (CMP 2013)
It's important to be agnostic about the solution within the vision statement. The vision is not for everyone to be using the tool you're thinking about developing. Just describe the long-term outcomes that you're trying to achieve in sufficient detail that if you time-traveled to a time in which your strategy was successful, you'd know you were there.
See Step 1: Start at the End of our metrics design philosophy for help if you get stuck.
Map It!¶
Create a visual representation of the problem space.
A Situation Model is a great option, which consists of one or more conservation targets, threats, and drivers. Interventions should be mapped where appropriate. However, you can do a systems map, journey map, or whatever approach you choose. See Step 2: Map It of our metrics design philosophy for inspiration.
The components of a Situation Model are defined below:
Conservation Targets¶
Conservation targets are specific species or ecological systems/habitats that are chosen to represent and encompass the full suite of biodiversity in the project area for place-based conservation or the focus of a thematic program (CMP 2013).
If you've already been through the process of developing a situation model, you should have a list of conservation targets to draw from. You may also already know which target is the focus of today's effort. For expediency, you can focus on the conservation target you are, well, targeting. If you're not sure, include them all. Place the conservation targets on the far right side of the Situation Model diagram.
Threats¶
Direct threats are primarily human activities that immediately degrade a conservation target (e.g., unsustainable fishing, unsustainable hunting, oil drilling, construction of roads, industrial wastewater, or introduction of exotic invasive species), but they can be natural phenomena altered by human activities (e.g., increase in extreme storm events or increased evaporation due to global climate change) or in rare cases, natural phenomena whose impact is increased by other human activities (e.g., a potential tsunami that threatens the last remaining population of an Asian rhino). (CMP 2013)
Feel free to list all threats, but what we really need is the threat that is mapped to the key intervention point that strategy will attack. If you haven't chosen a key intervention point yet, go ahead and build out the entire thing. If you have, just build out the relevant parts. List threats vertically to the left of the conservation target.
Drivers¶
From the Conservation Measures Partnership, drivers are:
key factors that drive the direct threats and ultimately influence your conservation targets. These include indirect threats (also known as root causes and drivers), opportunities, and enabling conditions (CMP 2013).
If you already have a situation model, just copy over the relevant bits. Otherwise, list the key drivers and make connections where there are relationships. Place drivers in boxes, mapped to their relevant threats, and group like drivers. Draw lines to connect related drivers. Leave a bit of room for interventions.
Interventions¶
Finally, map the primary existing interventions (e.g., strategies or tactics employed by boundary partners or strategic partners in your problem space). These are typically captured in hexagonal polygons. Connect them to the relevant threats or drivers.
Take a step back and determine which driver you would like to intervene on. This is your key intervention point. Circle the key intervention point(s) (or leverage point or pain point, etc.). This is where your group has chosen to focus, either with the entire program or with this specific tactic, tool, or feature.
Stakeholders¶
Stakeholders include everyone that is involved in the problem space or might be affected by your selected intervention. That may be a lot of people, which is why we'll focus in on Boundary Partners here. List stakeholders and underline boundary partners. Boundary partners are people or organizations you can directly influence. Stakeholders you can't directly influence, but can work with directly, are called Strategic Partners. You might put a star next to their name to distinguish them.
Feel free to group stakeholders to maintain a manageable list, but at the same time identify an actual human being who would fit in that group. If a boundary partner is described as 'permitting staff at state agencies', find a real human being in a permitting department at a state in your geographic scope as an example. If you can't do that, your boundary partner probably doesn't actually exist.
See Step 3: Develop Empathy of our metrics design philosophy for a lot more detail on this process.
Problems¶
If you're coming from the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation, everything so far has been very familiar. This is where we take a bit of a departure. Instead of jumping straight to listing strategies, we're going to think about how we can solve problems or create opportunities for the people whose behavior we need to change to achieve our conservation goal. Our strategy will be shaped by our understanding of these problems (but we actually won't define a specific strategy until the Product Definition step).
Identify the most important boundary partner in your list. Ask yourself, what do we need them to do (or to stop doing) to achieve our conservation goal? In other words, what behaviors do we need them to exhibit in order that our vision is achieved? You might frame these as behaviors you'd 'expect to see', 'like to see', and 'love to see'.
Now, write down the problems (or jobs to be done) that your boundary partners face in doing what you need them to do. Maybe they don't know where to get technical information, they don't have time to do it, they can't identify the priority areas to work, etc. If you - when you - talk to them about your proposed solution, they should relate to these problem statements - if not, these are not real problems (or jobs to be done) and solving them won't change their behavior.
See Step 4: Define the Problem for helpful guidance on this prompt.
Alternatives¶
From the list of problems you've identified, have any of these problems been solved already? You may seek to solve them more expediently, which is great, but knowing what the alternatives are will allow you to evaluate your proposed solution against a real baseline. List the currently existing alternative solutions.
How Might We?¶
Now you can start to brainstorm solutions. "How Might We?" is a way of framing design questions that help you convert your problem statements into opportunities. If, for example, your boundary partners don't know where to find key information, how might we get that information to them?
List the 'How Might We?' questions that address the problems you think will be most impactful for your boundary partners. Again, you'll take the time to craft your solutions during the Product Definition step. This will just give you a head start.
Considerations/Constraints¶
As your thinking about problems and potential solutions, you'll probably identify a few constraints on what you're able to do to solve the problem, or just some things to keep in mind going forward. Jot down any considerations and/or constraints so you don't forget.
Research Questions¶
This space is for recording questions that you don't have the answer to...yet. It might help to have an expert available during the scoping meeting so you don't get hung up on a question, but for those you can't address during the scoping meeting, write down the research questions and plan to get it answered before developing the Product Definition.