biodiversity conservation: applying new criteria to assess excellence
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich]On: 21 December 2014, At: 20:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Total Quality Management & BusinessExcellencePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20
Biodiversity conservation: Applyingnew criteria to assess excellenceSimon A. Black a , Helen M.R. Meredith a b & Jim J. Groombridge aa Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School ofAnthropology and Conservation, University of Kent , Canterbury,UKb Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London , London, UKPublished online: 23 Nov 2011.
To cite this article: Simon A. Black , Helen M.R. Meredith & Jim J. Groombridge (2011) Biodiversityconservation: Applying new criteria to assess excellence, Total Quality Management & BusinessExcellence, 22:11, 1165-1178, DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2011.624766
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2011.624766
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Biodiversity conservation: Applying new criteria to assess excellence
Simon A. Blacka∗, Helen M.R. Mereditha,b and Jim J. Groombridgea
aDurrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation,University of Kent, Canterbury, UK; bInstitute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London,London, UK
Biodiversity conservation is a discipline that has developed from amateur pursuits bywildlife enthusiasts in the 1960s to today’s complex community of multi-nationalNGOs, government agencies and research institutions. The conservation sector is largelyfunded by government grants, private donations and sponsorship, and unsurprisinglyfaces increasing scrutiny in the current economic downturn. Furthermore, the observedfailure to halt the decline of biodiversity provides additional pressure to organisations.In this context, business excellence models which have been utilised across many othersectors for evaluation, benchmarking and improvement planning could prove valuablein influencing the effectiveness of conservation management. This paper presentsa sector-specific Conservation Excellence Model which describes how conservationmanagers can better understand how scientific processes and results can be alignedwith financial and organisational measures of success. The relevance of the modelis illustrated through evaluation of two well-documented species conservationprogrammes, and experience of adapting the assessment process to evaluate a field-based conservation programme is also presented. The potential benefits of using theConservation Excellence Model include improved objective setting, more effectivemeasures of biological success and clearer evaluation of conservation processes. Thepaper illustrates how assessment models can support improvement in organisations stillunfamiliar with concepts of excellence.
Keywords: conservation effectiveness; management; EFQM; evaluation;improvement; planning; benchmarking
Why improved effectiveness is needed in biodiversity conservation
In 1992 the International Convention on Biological Diversity was signed by national gov-
ernments with a view to halting the decline of global biodiversity, yet in the intervening 20
years there has been a notable lack of progress (Butchart et al., 2010). Consequently, con-
servation organisations now face increasing expectations that investments should result in
effective outputs (Nicholls, 2004). This has followed an emerging trend since the 1990s
towards increased monitoring and evaluation of conservation programmes, either to
satisfy donors (e.g. governments, private donors and corporate sponsors) or to bring
accountability to project managers (Kapos et al., 2008). Investments in conservation
can be costly (Fischer & Lindenmayer, 2000); examples include grey wolf reintroductions
in the USA ($6.7 million over 8 years), California condor conservation efforts ($1 million
per year) and the golden lion tamarin (a small South American primate recovered at a cost
of $22,000 per surviving individual). Wherever projects demonstrate deficiency, bureauc-
racy or inefficiency, they inevitably consume resources at the expense of other
ISSN 1478-3363 print/ISSN 1478-3371 online
# 2011 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2011.624766
http://www.tandfonline.com
∗Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Total Quality Management
Vol. 22, No. 11, November 2011, 1165–1178
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UZ
H H
aupt
bibl
ioth
ek /
Zen
tral
bibl
ioth
ek Z
üric
h] a
t 20:
10 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
conservation initiatives. Conservation remains a sector that is relatively naıve in terms of
application of management practice. Can business excellence provide models for evaluat-
ing and enabling improved effectiveness of conservation interventions?
Evidence from business suggests that a TQM or ‘Excellence’ approach enables
achievement of higher levels of business performance (ECBE, 1999; GAO, 1991). The
Excellence philosophy is actively promoted by national and regional awards such as the
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in the USA, the European Foundation for
Quality Management (EFQM) European Excellence Award and the Deming Prize in
Japan (Nakhai & Neves, 1994) and the most commonly used models for assessing and
improving organisational effectiveness have arisen from these management awards
(Black & Porter, 1996; Oakland, Tanner, & Gadd, 2002). Since Excellence models
have proven useful in organisations of varying size and type, across a variety of cultures
and languages (Sila & Ebrahimpour, 2003) and in sectors as diverse as manufacturing,
education, health and the arts (Goldschmidt & Goldschmidt, 2001; Vallejo et al., 2006;
Zink & Schmidt, 1995), these frameworks might also be helpful in the conservation sector.
The EFQM Excellence model is, internationally, probably the most widely used frame-
work and, like the Baldrige National Quality Award criteria, is built on a set of concepts
found in organisations that have sustained customer satisfaction, long-term operational
best performance and continuing financial success (Black & Porter, 1996; ECBE, 1999;
GAO, 1991). Excellence concepts, such as a focus on results, management by fact, a
systems perspective and continuous improvement should resonate strongly with conserva-
tion biologists. Additionally, the EFQM Excellence Model (EFQM, 2003) is not a prescrip-
tive framework and does not demand implementation of ‘best practice’. This characteristic
is useful in the conservation setting, since supposed ‘best practice’ in one situation might be
wholly inappropriate in another, for reasons of geography, climate, species, habitats or tra-
ditions of local human communities. The EFQM model instead encourages users to focus on
understanding their system of work to facilitate improvement, and it is this perspective
which may offer new insights for managers of conservation. If the language of Excellence
can be made relevant to conservation, then an excellence model may be an effective tool to
identify areas in which conservation programmes are underperforming and could improve.
Conservation performance evaluations have historically tended to focus on inventories
of completed activities and dollars invested, but in recent years the trend has started to
move towards assessment of ‘outcomes’ (species and habitat improvements), for which
various methodologies have been developed (Ferraro & Pattanayak, 2006). However an
excellence-based approach could offer new benefits to the conservation community
including:
. Understanding the wider issues concerning their organisation
. An efficient focus on relevant data and measures
. A better understanding of links between results and the approaches taken
. A balanced consideration of short- and long-term pressures
. A standard framework for discussing organisational improvement with outsiders
Business excellence in the context of biodiversity conservation
Since the 1970s, conservation management has revolved around development and
implementation of formal conservation management planning methods, but these
approaches have been criticised for being excessively restrictive and often detrimental
to the immediate recovery needs of the species concerned (Boersma, Kareiva, Fagan,
1166 S.A. Black et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UZ
H H
aupt
bibl
ioth
ek /
Zen
tral
bibl
ioth
ek Z
üric
h] a
t 20:
10 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Clark, & Hoekstra, 2001; Clark, Hoekstra, Boersma, & Kareiva, 2002). More recent con-
servation management frameworks have been developed, including the International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Framework for Assessing Effectiveness in Pro-
tected Areas (Hockings, Stolton, Leverington, Dudley, & Courrau, 2006) and the Open
Standards for the Practice of Conservation (CMP, 2004), but these are limited to assessing
management processes and do not consider performance nor issues such as human
resources and financial management. Business excellence models have the advantage of
being focused on the effectiveness of the overall system or organisation that embodies a
conservation programme from its design and implementation through to its operation
and review.
The EFQM Excellence model appears relevant to the types of organisations involved
in conservation and has already been successfully applied in many countries, in both large
and small organisations, and in government, public service, non-government, commercial,
industrial and educational sectors. The generic management language used in the EFQM
model nevertheless includes some terminology that is unfamiliar to conservation pro-
fessionals so a degree of translation is needed to relate the concepts of excellence to a con-
servation setting. Black and Groombridge (2010) offer this translation, the ‘Conservation
Excellence Model’ (Figure 1), which adapts the EFQM and Baldrige Award concepts into
a conservation context.
The translation of concepts by Black and Groombridge (2010) include the definition of
‘customer’, the separation of biodiversity from human and organisational results and the
definition of ‘core conservation processes’. The Conservation Excellence Model places bio-
diversity as the ‘customer’ of conservation: biological results, trends, scientific models and
projections relating to species or their habitats are considered within the criterion
Figure 1. Conservation Excellence Model: an interpretation of the EFQM model in a conservationcontext, showing Oakland et al.’s (2002) categorisation of People (A), Process (B) and Performance(B) criteria by linking ‘approach’ (implementation) with ‘results’ (value).
Total Quality Management 1167
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UZ
H H
aupt
bibl
ioth
ek /
Zen
tral
bibl
ioth
ek Z
üric
h] a
t 20:
10 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
‘Biodiversity Results’. Although this criterion covers a potentially complex issue, involving
interactions of animal populations, plants, landscapes and geophysical variables within eco-
systems, these aspects are the ‘bread and butter’ concerns of conservation professionals, and
are more clearly understood in the profession than other ‘management’ indicators. The ‘Bio-
diversity Results’ criterion is equivalent to the EFQM criterion ‘Customer Results’ (EFQM,
2003). Other results measures with significant practical influence on the work of conserva-
tion (time/milestones, budgets, technical outcomes and deliverables are placed in the cri-
terion ‘Conservation Program Results’, which is the equivalent of ‘Business Results’ in
the EFQM model (EFQM, 2003) and include measures of performance against objectives,
financial results and project milestones.
Since volunteers and local community members are often directly engaged in conser-
vation work alongside official employees, measures of employee and human community
results are included in ‘People and Local Community Results’. Levels of involvement in
the programme (e.g. numbers of community volunteers, participants in meetings) are
included alongside employee metrics in this criterion, the equivalent of ‘People Results’
(EFQM, 2003). Wider societal impacts remain in a criterion ‘Impact on Wider Society’,
including indirect measures such as human well-being (e.g. safety, welfare, income),
measures of human–wildlife conflict (e.g. predation, crop raiding, wildlife exploitation,
or incidents of human interference and harassment) or human-use effects (e.g. hunting,
harvesting). These societal aspects are important as wildlife becomes increasingly
impacted by human influences.
The approach criteria of the model including technical conservation work processes
(‘Core Conservation Processes’) and the generic management processes (Leadership,
People and Community Management, Resource Management) broadly reflect the cri-
terion structure of the EFQM model. As in the EFQM and Baldrige models, learning
and feedback are important features of the overall model and this aspect of using
data to inform further improvements is inherent across the criteria. A further important
consideration concerns the fact that while conservation recovery may take decades to
complete, many conservation programmes themselves are relatively transient, perhaps
2–5 years in duration, so suitable exit strategies to establish sustainable work required
beyond the remit of the programme must be considered as part of the evaluation of the
current programme. Examples might include training of local volunteers or government
workers, the managed hand-over of data to local representatives, the establishment of
long-term monitoring, or the establishment of land rights and governance of protected
areas.
Like its business counterparts, the Conservation Excellence Model provides conserva-
tion managers with a core rationale based on:
. Management by fact, rather than personal or political agenda or other preconceptions
. A focus on biodiversity, species survival and habitat needs
. A focus on results and the creation of a value chain to deliver outcomes
. A focus on the future and sustainability of species’ populations and landscapes
. Continuous improvement, adaptability and innovation in management interventions
. A systems perspective, accounting for effects both internal and external to the
programme. Valuing staff and community partners and engaging them to improve the programme. Societal responsibility, accounting for human needs and societal constraints
The Conservation Excellence Model can be used (i) to identify if correct approaches and
relevant performance measures are being applied, (ii) to decide whether the design of the
1168 S.A. Black et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UZ
H H
aupt
bibl
ioth
ek /
Zen
tral
bibl
ioth
ek Z
üric
h] a
t 20:
10 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
programme and its policy, people and activities are consistent with its overall intended
purpose, (iii) to rate the programme (or a range of different programmes) using a
scoring system to evaluate effectiveness or to make comparisons. Assessments can be con-
ducted by an individual or a team using existing data, policy, budgets, reports and inter-
views with key personnel and other stakeholders, followed by a consensus assessment
of this information against the model criteria.
Some commentators have criticised the EFQM assessment and scoring processes as
overly bureaucratic and that their use tends to distract managers from key priorities for
improvement (Seddon, 1998; Tanner & Tantawy, 2001). We provide examples of a top
level assessment of established conservation programmes using the Conservation
Excellence Model to identify whether the model provides any useful and important
insights that would benefit each programme plus a third example of how assessment
can be conducted in a field-based programme with its attendant constraints on time
and resources.
A desktop assessment: conservation of the Po’ouli; an endemic bird of Hawaii
The Po’ouli (Melamprosops phaeosoma) is an important bird species; unknown to local
people, absent from historical accounts and entirely new to science on its first sighting
in 1973 (Baker, 1998), yet within 30 years of its remarkable discovery the species was
extinct. The Po’ouli is a Hawaiian honeycreeper endemic to Maui, and soon after its dis-
covery, the bird’s apparent rarity precipitated its listing under the US Endangered Species
Act. A serious reduction in population was observed through the 1980s and 1990s and
despite several last ditch attempts at recovery involving the last three known individuals
the species has not been seen since 2005 (Groombridge et al., 2003; IUCN 2009; Vander-
Werf et al., 2003). An environmental journalist who has reviewed the demise of this
species, suggests that its extinction was caused by a combination of ‘pigs, rats and bureau-
cratic dithering’ (Powell, 2008). A range of publications concerning the species’ recovery
programme was reviewed to enable a high-level assessment of the programme using the
Conservation Excellence Model criteria (Black & Groombridge, 2010). Data and obser-
vations, based on documented evidence were grouped into each of the model criteria
for which a brief summary is presented in Figure 2.
The broad context of the species; its status and history (shown in the results criteria in
grey boxes in Figure 2) suggest that both habitat protection and ecological study were
appropriate for conserving the Po’ouli in the 1970s. Programme workers needed both to
establish a better understanding of the bird’s biology and to protect and enhance suitable
habitat, particularly by removing feral pigs which disturbed the soil invertebrates that con-
stituted much of the bird’s diet. In reality, throughout the 1980s and 1990s a programme of
fencing and pig eradication was achieved (albeit slowly and erratically), however the
understanding of the bird species itself remained poor; ecological data collection was
sporadic and little was learned about the bird’s biological needs (Powell, 2008). By the
mid 1980s ornithological survey data already revealed the Po’ouli population to be in
serious decline.
During this period, precious little new knowledge was obtained about the species or its
wider ecosystem. For example, a single nest was discovered in 1986, and although mon-
itored by biologists and observed to be poorly located (with chicks exposed to climatic
conditions), the clutch was observed to die in the nest when intervention might have pro-
vided important learning. The ‘precautionary principle’ (Foster, Vechia, & Repacholi,
2000), which assumes a worst-case status for the demise of the species and demands a
Total Quality Management 1169
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UZ
H H
aupt
bibl
ioth
ek /
Zen
tral
bibl
ioth
ek Z
üric
h] a
t 20:
10 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Figure 2. Assessment of the Po’ouli programme using the model (Baker, 2001; DLNR, 1999; DLNR & USFWS, 1999; VanderWerf et al., 2003).
11
70
S.A
.B
lack
etal.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UZ
H H
aupt
bibl
ioth
ek /
Zen
tral
bibl
ioth
ek Z
üric
h] a
t 20:
10 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
strategy to directly increase the population (e.g. through captive breeding) was not applied.
Instead, from the 1970s to the late 1990s managers at the top of the hierarchy maintained
long-term habitat recovery as the priority despite the fact that biological survey results
indicated a need for emergency population recovery.
A review of ‘Core Conservation Processes’ confirms the inappropriate focus on habitat
renewal processes (i.e. not fundamental to the short-term needs of the species). Until the
late 1990s few processes addressed declining population numbers. When a change in pri-
orities finally occurred, it was too late. The programme was designed around misidentified,
inappropriate processes. Habitat renewal strategies (to encourage population growth in the
wild) typically see recovery of vegetation over a 10-year period, yet the last, ageing birds
needed success in a 1-year breeding cycle; management priorities did not match the emer-
gency needs of the species.
A review of ‘People and Local Community Management’ (staff and community vol-
unteers) and ‘Resources Management’ reveals that decisions could only be made by senior
people and necessary resources and permissions were typically delivered only after signifi-
cant delays (e.g. permission to initiate captive breeding, or to protect wild nest sites).
Overall, ‘Leadership’ of the programme was exemplified by bureaucratic hierarchies,
while the philosophical preferences of leaders (for wider ecosystem recovery rather
than hands-on interventions with birds) had a negative impact, causing the use of ineffec-
tive methods across the programme.
In summary, a desktop assessment of documented data and activities in the Po’ouli
programme identified a number of actions to improve its management. If these actions
had been identified and applied, managers could have established a new set of priorities,
success measures, budget allocations and methods of implementation. These actions
would have led to a very different approach to the recovery of this species and may
have achieved a very different outcome.
Results criteria:
. Identify critical results (population recovery) using species and ecological data.
Policy and strategy:
. Devise objectives that relate to conserving the species, not a philosophical stance.
. Establish success measures that relate to purpose and guide work priorities.
. Revise plans according to feedback from data or changes in the wider context.
Conservation processes:
. Identify processes which deliver new knowledge on the biology of the Po’ouli.
. Identify and adapt methods to deliver tangible results (e.g. captive breeding).
People and community management and resources:
. Get the right experts involved to ensure an immediate increase in population size.
. Make resources available (i.e. equipment, staff, data) for priority work processes.
Leadership:
. Establish purposeful leadership; focus effort and actions on critical priorities.
. Authority for relevant decisions should be delegated to experts doing the work so
that actions are focused, timely and effective.
Total Quality Management 1171
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UZ
H H
aupt
bibl
ioth
ek /
Zen
tral
bibl
ioth
ek Z
üric
h] a
t 20:
10 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
An alternative case: assessing conservation of the black-footed ferret
The managed recovery of North America’s black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), one of
the world’s rarest mammals, is considered a more successful conservation intervention
(IUCN, 2009) involving a programme which, unlike the Po’ouli, has adapted to changing
priorities over time. This ferret species is a predator of prairie dogs, and has been greatly
affected by agricultural land use, eradication of prey through pest control and the impact
of diseases (Williams, Mills, Kwiatkowski, Thorne, & Boerger-Fields, 1994; Williams,
Thome, Appel, & Belitsky, 1988). The last population of about 130 ferrets existed in
Wyoming, but from 1987 to 1990 the population was maintained entirely in captivity
(Wisely, Santymire, Livieri, Mueting, & Howard, 2008). When local captive-breeding
specialists did not take advice on bio-security from external zoo experts, an outbreak of
plague in the ferret breeding facility nearly wiped out the last remaining ferrets (Clark,
1997). After this near-disaster, the programme introduced improved breeding facilities
and protocols, established a systematic captive-release programme including pre-condition-
ing and vaccination, and identified a range of release sites across Mexico, USA and Canada
which has revived the wild population (BFFRIT, 2009). We assessed the black-footed ferret
programme against the Conservation Excellence Model (Figure 3) to examine whether
further improvements could be identified:
Results: negative rancher views of ferrets, reduced prey populations, few nest sites
. Identify critical factors to ensure habitat protection as well as species recovery.
Policy and strategy: inconsistency in communication versus resource allocation.
. Planning does not finish merely with the production of the plan itself but should
include the management of objective setting, budgets and resource allocation.
Core processes: not identified/resourced, nor compared to world class approaches.
. Identify the correct processes and use them to progress the desired plan.
. Ensure results inform policy and future direction (a learning process).
People and resources: limitations are caused by a hierarchical bureaucracy.
. Simplify the complex set of partner organisations (federal, state, zoos, research).
. Identify and use relevant experts, even in a consultative capacity.
. Allow people on the ground to make decisions and use resources.
Leadership: leaders did not appear to be compelled to tackle problems of organisation,
politics, information, decision-making, resource allocation and communication.
. Hierarchical structures exacerbate problems and must be removed by leaders.
. Technical information rather than political preferences should influence leaders’
decisions, if conservation goals are to be achieved.
In the case of the black-footed ferret programme, problems with policy, resources and
authority were not addressed (Clark, 1997) since the issues generally sat outside the
specific conservation remit of the programme; in a nutshell, scientists focused on problems
of science not organisation design and effectiveness. It was failure in the latter that nearly
led to the extinction of the black-footed ferret. Evaluation using the Conservation Excel-
lence Model raises the question: is the organisation operating successfully and learning to
improve? For the ferret programme up to the mid 1990s, poor results, slow decision-
1172 S.A. Black et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UZ
H H
aupt
bibl
ioth
ek /
Zen
tral
bibl
ioth
ek Z
üric
h] a
t 20:
10 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Figure 3. Black-footed ferret programme assessment (Anderson, Forrest, Clark, & Richardson, 1986; BFFRIT, 2009; Clark, 1997; Hess, 1995; Reading & Kellert,1993; Williams et al., 1994).
To
tal
Qu
ality
Ma
na
gem
ent
11
73
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UZ
H H
aupt
bibl
ioth
ek /
Zen
tral
bibl
ioth
ek Z
üric
h] a
t 20:
10 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
making, poor resource utilisation, weak technical approaches and ineffective leadership
are consistently raised as problems.
Previously, the black-footed ferret programme had consistently struggled, but since
1996 a more balanced approach has been applied (BFFRIT, 2009) albeit at significant
cost and delay. Our observation is that an assessment using the Conservation Excellence
Model would have highlighted the organisational weaknesses in the programme at a
much earlier date. Improvements could have been implemented, enabling savings in
effort, time, money and resources. This would also have reduced the repeated,
unnecessary and catastrophic cycles of loss in the ferret population over the years of
its recovery.
A case study in East Africa: the practicalities of assessing a field conservation
programme
The conservation biologist whether a line manager or a remote project supervisor has a
number of challenges to face when conducting an assessment on a field project. In
general, conservation programmes are relatively resource-limited, so a formal assessment
visit is difficult to accommodate. The nature of the work, in difficult-to-access locations,
often with limited or no office accommodation, means that informal discussion is an
important data-collection method. In addition, visitors are often accommodated in the
same location as programme employees, with the assessors being more ‘embedded’ in
the operation. This provides a range of informal opportunities to understand the pro-
gramme and how it operates. Assessors need to use a process which has a number of adap-
tations from the established award-style assessment often used in other sectors. As an
example, a recent assessment of an amphibian conservation programme conducted in
East Africa by the authors followed the following process.
The assessment was conducted over a 6-day period by third-party reviewers during a
project review visit. The visit included a number of separated geographical work locations,
involving significant rough-road travel. Information was gathered by attending formal pre-
sentations by programme employees and conducting in-depth discussions with programme
leaders, employees and external stakeholders. Additional informal discussions throughout
the visit were used to verify the information that had been collected. The assessors fol-
lowed a pro-forma document covering the criteria of the model and also took informal
notes throughout the visit. Notes were updated at the end of each day and a formal col-
lation of information against the 32 sub-criteria of the model occurred at the end of the
visit. The assessment process included:
(1) Collection of evidence from documentation (e.g. meeting minutes and project
reports), interview notes and informal notes, summarised in an assessment
booklet of 32 sub-criteria.
(2) Identification of strengths and areas for improvement with reference to the data
collected and a generic scoring scale (Approach/Deployment for processes and
Results/Scope for results).
(3) A scoring process, used solely by the assessors in the knowledge of the programme
leader to inform recommendations. The scores were not shared widely as it was
decided that a score in itself would have limited value if shared with the pro-
gramme participants at this stage, particularly in the absence of relevant
benchmarks.
1174 S.A. Black et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UZ
H H
aupt
bibl
ioth
ek /
Zen
tral
bibl
ioth
ek Z
üric
h] a
t 20:
10 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
(4) Outline recommendations were summarised for discussion with programme
managers.
On this particular programme in East Africa, the employed field team was small (five
direct employees), but the programme involved a diverse range of community participants
(e.g. farmers and other land users). This required assessors to discuss issues and collect
data from employees, programme trustees and various external stakeholders and commu-
nity partners. The assessment was conducted informally as part of a normal process of
project review. Assessors needed to be adept at utilising additional sources of data such
as the minutes of formal meetings conducted for other purposes during the visit period,
for which the assessors had reason to attend. Assessors conducted their work with an atti-
tude of support and assistance, not as an adversarial ‘audit’, and the response on the part of
the programme’s employees was both positive and receptive. The assessors were careful to
maintain a courteous, respectful and positive relationship with programme participants,
remaining mindful of cross-cultural issues.
Although the detailed outcomes and recommendations of the assessment remain con-
fidential to the programme itself, the benefits gained from the use of the Conservation
Excellence Model in this instance can be summarised as follows:
. All issues relevant to the effective management of the programme were considered,
not just those relating to science, budgets or some other preferred perspective.. Although data were collected through a relatively informal process, the use of a
document summarising the model criteria ensured a comprehensive process.. The straightforward language and layout of the model enabled clear discussion with
programme managers and stakeholders on relevant issues.. Organisations are increasingly aware of assessment procedures as these are being
adopted universally to improve the impact of conservation actions. In East Africa,
the programme participants had already been through a similar process with
another donor and were well-disposed towards assessment.. Future score benchmarking will be possible to illustrate progress made by the pro-
gramme in terms of results and the effectiveness of changes in approach.
Given that the assessors were visiting the NGO in East Africa to help to develop its conser-
vation programmes for the future, the attitude of participating employees, volunteers and
stakeholders was incredibly helpful and truthful as they realised that the advantages of accu-
rately communicating both the strengths and weaknesses of their projects to improve future
project proposals which were being jointly developed. Therefore the assessment process
was perceived as having clear benefits, e.g. helping to overcome challenges and weaknesses.
As a general point, the assessor’s status and agenda probably has a big impact on the infor-
mants and the design of the assessment should be sensitive to this. As in any excellence
assessment process it is important that data should be collected through constructive
enquiry and assessors should provide supportive, useful and timely feedback.
Conclusions
Conservation success and failure can sometimes be measured in the starkest terms: extinc-
tion. For the Po’ouli, failure of the programme has meant extinction of the species, despite
significant investments in scientific resources and habitat protection. For the black-footed
ferret, previously complex conservation plans caused decades of delays, increased costs
and ultimately compromised the genetic health of the surviving animals. Although the
Total Quality Management 1175
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UZ
H H
aupt
bibl
ioth
ek /
Zen
tral
bibl
ioth
ek Z
üric
h] a
t 20:
10 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
ferret population survived and recovery and reintroduction followed, the programme was
inefficient and absorbed unnecessary resources. In the current climate of austerity, a better
way of managing conservation needs to be found.
This paper highlights how business excellence can provide new insights for conserva-
tion programme managers and offers a new management framework to increase effective-
ness in the conservation sector. Our initial work suggests that methods for conducting
assessments can be successfully applied to field-based conservation programmes and that
the concepts of the Conservation Excellence model are accessible and can be discussed
in a meaningful way with conservation programme managers. In particular, the Conserva-
tion Excellence Model raises important and useful questions for conservation managers:
. Are the correct things being measured to understand and conserve biodiversity?
. Are programme objectives reflected in the work that is being conducted?
. Does the programme deliver meaningful conservation outcomes?
. Are all aspects of the model currently being managed within the organisation?
. Which aspects of the model are being managed ineffectively?
. If some aspects are poorly managed, what is the impact of these shortfalls?
. Does the team review its progress, analyse data and identify improvements?
. Can team members communicate ideas or give feedback on problems?
Several opportunities are presented by the Conservation Excellence Model. First, the model
can be used as a template during the design or start-up phase of a new conservation pro-
gramme, to shape the overall management system (e.g. defining objectives, identifying
success measures/feedback data, key processes/technical interventions/community engage-
ment, designing management reviews and establishing the roles of leaders and key staff).
Additionally, NGOs or government departments managing multiple programmes might
use the model as a reference for the evaluation of each programme in their portfolio to
compare and contrast the reasons for relative successes in programmes. Furthermore, the
model could be developed as a generic framework for identification and comparison of
world-class examples of conservation success to enable better knowledge exchange
across the conservation community. These latter comparisons would overcome a major
shortfall in this respect which has been the cause of despair for many conservation scientists
(Clark, 1997; Snyder & Snyder, 2000).
Conservation professionals need to understand both the biological system and the
organisational system in which they work. It is hoped that the Conservation Excellence
Model enables conservation biologists to understand the links between people, processes
and performance and how to examine these broader management topics. Perhaps future
efforts in conservation can avoid unnecessary failure by applying some of the lessons
learned from business excellence.
References
Anderson, E., Forrest, S., Clark, T., & Richardson, L. (1986). Paleobiology, biogeography, and sys-tematics of the black-footed ferret, Mustela nigripes (Audubon and Bachman), 1851. GreatBasin Naturalist Memoirs, North America, 8, 11–62.
Baker, P.E. (1998). A description of the first live Po’ouli captured. The Wilson Bulletin; A QuarterlyJournal of Ornithology, 110, 307–310.
Baker, P.E. (2001). Status and distribution of the Po’ouli in the Hanawi Natural Area reservebetween December 1995 and June 1997. Studies in Avian Biology, 22, 144–150.
BFFRIT (Black-Footed Ferret Recovery Implementation Team) (2009). Black footed ferret.Retrieved March 2011, from http://www.blackfootedferret.org/
1176 S.A. Black et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UZ
H H
aupt
bibl
ioth
ek /
Zen
tral
bibl
ioth
ek Z
üric
h] a
t 20:
10 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Black, S.A., & Groombridge, J.J. (2010). Use of a business excellence model to improve conserva-tion programs. Conservation Biology, 24, 1448–1458. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01562
Black, S.A., & Porter, L.J. (1996). Identification of the critical factors of TQM. Decision Sciences,27(1), 1–21.
Boersma, P.D., Kareiva, P., Fagan, W.F., Clark, J.A., & Hoekstra, J.M. (2001). How good are endan-gered species recovery plans? BioScience, 51, 643–649.
Butchart, S.H.M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Almond, E.A., . . .Watson, R. (2010). Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science, 328,1164–1168.
Clark, J.A., Hoekstra, J.M., Boersma, P.D., & Kareiva, P. (2002). Improving U.S EndangeredSpecies Act recovery plans: Key findings and recommendations of the SCB Recovery PlanProject. Conservation Biology, 16, 1510–1519.
Clark, T.W. (1997). Averting extinction: Reconstructing endangered species recovery. New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.
CMP (Conservation Measures Partnership). (2004). Open standards for the practice of conservation(version 2.0). Washington, DC. Retrieved from www.ConservationMeasures.org
DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources) & USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service).(1999). Environmental assessment for proposed management actions to save the Po’ouli.Maui County, Hawaii.
DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources). (1999). Department of Land and NaturalResources announces its recommendations to prevent the extinction of the Po’ouli.‘Elepaio, 59, 3–5.
ECBE (European Centre for Business Excellence). (1999). The X Factor: Winning performancethrough business excellence. Leeds: British Quality Foundation.
EFQM (European Foundation for Quality Management). (2003). Introducing excellence. Brussels:Author.
Ferraro, P.J., & Pattanayak, S.K. (2006). Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of bio-diversity conservation investments. PLOS Biology, 4, 482–488.
Fischer, J., & Lindenmayer, D.B. (2000). An assessment of the published results of animal reloca-tions. Biological Conservation, 96, 1–11.
Foster, K.R., Vechia, P., & Repacholi, M.H. (2000). Science and the precautionary principle.Science, 288, 979. doi:10.1126/science.288.5468.979
GAO. (1991). Management practices: U.S. companies improve performance through quality efforts.(GAO/NSIAD-91-190). Washington: General Accounting Office.
Goldschmidt, H., & Goldschmidt, H.O. (2001). How generic is the EFQM model? Art and quality:The EFQM model applied to the field of art. Accreditation and Quality Assurance, 6,435–439.
Groombridge, J.J., Massey, J.G., Bruch, J.C., Malcolm, T., Brosius, C.N., Okada, M.M., . . .VanderWerf, B.A. (2003). An attempt to recover the Po’ouli by translocation and an appraisalof recovery strategy for bird species of extreme rarity. Biological Conservation, 118,365–375.
Hess, K. (1995). Saving the black-footed ferret: Policy reforms and private sector incentives. CampSherman, OR: The Thoreau Institute. Retrieved November 2009, from http://www.ti.org/esa.html
Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N., & Courrau, J. (2006). Evaluating effective-ness: A framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas. GlandSwitzerland and Cambridge: IUCN.
IUCN. (2009). Red list of threatened species. Retrieved June 2011 from http://www.iucnredlist.org/Kapos, V., Balmford, A., Aveling, R., Bubb, P., Carey, P., Entwistle, A., . . . Manica, A. (2008).
Calibrating conservation: New tools for measuring success. Conservation Letters, 1,155–164.
Nakhai, B., & Neves, J.S. (1994). The Deming, Baldrige and European Quality Awards. QualityProgress, 27, 33–37.
Nicholls, H. (2004). The conservation business. PLoS Biology, 2, 1256–1259.Oakland, J.S., Tanner, S., & Gadd, T. (2002). Best practice in business excellence. Total Quality
Management, 13, 1125–1139.Powell, A. (2008). The race to save the world’s rarest bird: The discovery and death of the Po’ouli.
Mechanicsburg PA: Stackpole Books.
Total Quality Management 1177
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UZ
H H
aupt
bibl
ioth
ek /
Zen
tral
bibl
ioth
ek Z
üric
h] a
t 20:
10 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Reading, R.P., & Kellert, S.R. (1993). Attitudes toward a proposed reintroduction of black-footedferrets (Mustela nigripes). Conservation Biology, 7, 569–580.
Seddon, J. (1998). The vanguard guide to business excellence. Buckingham: Vanguard EducationLimited.
Sila, I., & Ebrahimpour, M. (2003). Examination and comparison of the critical factors of totalquality management (TQM) across countries. International Journal of ProductionResearch, 41(2), 235–268.
Snyder, N., & Snyder, H. (2000). The California Condor. A saga of natural history and conservation.London, UK: Academic Press.
Tanner, S., & Tantawy, B. (2001). Lessons from the introduction of self assessment: What are thekey factors for success? In: Proceedings of the 6th World Congress for Total QualityManagement: Business Excellence–What is to be done? (Vol. 1, pp. 184–196). StPetersburg, Russia: Stockholm School of Economics.
Vallejo, P., Saura, R.M., Sunol, R., Kazandjian, R., Urena, V., & Mauri, J. (2006). A proposed adap-tation of the EFQM fundamental concepts of excellence to health care based on the PATHframework. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 18(5), 327–335.
VanderWerf, E.A., Malcolm, T.R., Fretz, J., Massey, J.G., Lieberman, A., Groombridge, J.J., . . .Brosius, C.N. (2003). Update on recovery efforts for the Po’ouli. ‘Elepaio, Journal of theHawaii Audubon Society, 63, 25–27.
Williams, E.S., Mills, K., Kwiatkowski, D.R., Thorne, E.T., & Boerger-Fields, A. (1994). Plague in ablack-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes). Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 30, 581–585.
Williams, E.S., Thome, E.T., Appel, M.J.G., & Belitsky, D.W. (1988). Canine distemper in black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes) from Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 24, 385–398.
Wisely, S.M., Santymire, R.M., Livieri, T.M., Mueting, S.A., & Howard, J. (2008). Genotypic andphenotypic consequences of reintroduction history in the black-footed ferret (Mustelanigripes). Conservation Genetics, 9, 389–399.
Zink, K.J., & Schmidt, A. (1995). Measuring universities against the European Quality Award cri-teria. Total Quality Management, 6, 547–561.
1178 S.A. Black et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UZ
H H
aupt
bibl
ioth
ek /
Zen
tral
bibl
ioth
ek Z
üric
h] a
t 20:
10 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014