Sustained forests; sustained profits

[ HOME | Lasting Forests Home | Table of Contents | The Finder | Glossary ]

Preemptive Review

Academic reviews are made for universities, colleges, and departments. Budgetary reviews of businesses are expected. People seem to rush to get ready for them; to be nervous; entropy is high. Perhaps an advanced state of readiness can be useful. Gradual, thoughtful preparation over time may result in financial savings, reduced costs, and reduced gaps in performance or preparedness. A strategy used within Lasting Forests is called the preemptive review.

Reviews are said to: (1) contribute to planning efforts, (2) identify system weaknesses, (3) identify system strengths, (4) identify problems, (5) help assign work priorities, (6) improve management, (7) highlight opportunities, (8) point to needs, (9) improve communications, (10) improve coordination within the System, (11) establish a benchmark for other evaluations of the System. It is hard to believe that any of these need special attention since on-going system management would naturally be involved in all of them. In all organizations certain actions become slack. Work is not allocated consistently. The unpleasant tasks are delayed. Periodic reviews are not logical but they reflect the human condition. Reviews can be stressful because most people in the System, like the farmer "ain't farming half as good as I know how." The joke hides the reasons: insufficient capital, few incentives, uncertainty and financial risk, peer pressures (or lack of them). family needs, and others. Reviewers readily find fault and limitations and rarely know the reasons for them...and thus, cannot propose alternatives.

Internal reviews are either weak and meaningless, or harsh and destructive of cooperation, openness, friendliness, support, and loyalty within the System. Saying "it does not have to be that way" does not reduce the high probability of difficulties with internal reviews over many years.

If a good review has: (1) preparation, (2) a recognized process, (3) a timely final report, and (4) follow-up (corrective or rewarding), then it is a long, difficult process and it can be assumed it will be very expensive. Similar assurances can be made with less certainty about the benefits from such reviews.

The review is a good idea out of control. It is not needed regularly, perhaps not at all in a dynamic, well-managed company or agency, never more often than once every 5 to 7 years.

A preemptive review is a one-day visit by a paid interrogator of staff. It is in place and conducted in small brief group sessions. This is an ombudsman-like function. If a need for a review is perceived, one is called for. Otherwise, System work should continue. Internal reports from this review that may preempt a more formal, expansive one are circulated.

The preemptive review is unannounced and conducted at irregular intervals. An invited person from outside the System conducts it. It is always conducted to improve the R score over the next 5 years, longer if a strong argument can be advanced. It has the function of delaying expensive formal reviews...or calling on a review very soon.

Return to the top.

Other Resources:
[ HOME | Lasting Forests (Introductions) | Units of Lasting Forests | Ranging | Guidance | Forests | Gamma Theory | Wildlife Law Enforcement Systems | Antler Points | Species-Specific Management (SSM) | Wilderness and Ancient Forests | Appendices | Ideas for Development | Disclaimer]
Quick Access to the Contents of LastingForests.com

This Web site is maintained by R. H. Giles, Jr.
Last revision January 17, 2000.