- Email: [email protected]
A rapid assessment of the current status of project management skills in the conservation sector
Journal for Nature Conservation 34 (2016) 126–132
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal for Nature Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.de/jnc
A rapid assessment of the current status of project management skills in the conservation sector Adam Barlow ∗ , Christina Greenwood Barlow, Lucy Boddam-Whetham, Beth Robinson WildTeam Conservation, Surfside, Trelantis, St Merryn, Padstow PL28 8NU, Cornwall, UK
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 9 December 2015 Received in revised form 14 October 2016 Accepted 18 October 2016 Keywords: Project management skills Conservation sector Training
a b s t r a c t A lack of project management skills in the conservation sector may, in part, be contributing to the gap between conservation research and implementation. This study used an online survey to assess the need for project management skills, the demand and supply of project management training, and the barriers to that training in the conservation sector. We received a total of 250 responses from conservationists representing 141 organisations and 52 countries. Ninety eight percent of respondents thought that project management skills were important for them to be effective in their current role, but over 66% of respondents assessed themselves as having insufficient competency in project management skills. Seventy percent of respondents reported receiving project management training before, but only 10% had project management certification. Over 75% of respondents were interested in additional training, but lack of funds was identified as a major barrier to receiving training. European conservationists valued project management skills less than conservationists from Asia. The results suggest that an increased availability of affordable, certified project management training would enable the conservation sector as a whole to achieve more measurable impact. © 2016 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The discipline of project management is widely used in the engineering, technology, business, and development sectors to improve the success of projects while controlling costs, time, and quality under changing conditions (Crawford, Pollack, & England, 2006; Milosevic & Patanakul, 2005; Patanakul, Lewwongcharoen, & Milosevic, 2010; Teller, Unger, Kock, & Gemünden, 2012). Conversely, the application of inappropriate or inadequate project management approaches has been shown to lead to project failure in these sectors (Al Neimat, 2005; Chua, & Lam, 2005; Humphrey, 2005). For over three decades, the need for improved planning, implementation, and evaluation of efforts has been highlighted as essential for enabling conservation projects to adapt to changing conditions, measure the impact of their efforts, and improve the chances of achieving impact (Grumbine, 1994; Holling & Meffe, 1996; Holling, 1978). Conservation is implemented through activities which can be grouped together into projects. For conservation
∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Barlow), [email protected] (C.G. Barlow), [email protected] (L. Boddam-Whetham). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2016.10.003 1617-1381/© 2016 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
purposes, a project can be defined as “a temporary effort to achieve a set of desired conservation results within a defined schedule and budget”. Projects are implemented by application of a project management approach which, for conservation purposes, can be defined as “the planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of a wildlife conservation project to achieve desired conservation results within a defined schedule and budget”. For conservation, there is no empirical research into the relationship of project management approaches and project success (which can be defined as delivering conservation results within a defined schedule and cost), but it seems reasonable to assume that the implementation of inadequate project management approaches will likewise lead to a higher likelihood of project failure in this sector. Acting on this assumption, over the last two decades, project management approaches have been gradually developed, tailored, and integrated into the conservation sector as a means to help improve implementation of conservation initiatives (McDonald-Madden et al., 2010; Parma, 1998; Wilhere, 2002). There has also been a growing effort over the past decade to build the capacity of conservationists in project management skills and to standardise best practice in this discipline. In 2002, for example, the Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP) was created as a collaborative platform to develop a set of guidelines (The Open
A. Barlow et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 34 (2016) 126–132
Standards for the Practice of Conservation) to help practitioners adaptively manage conservation projects of any size (CMP, 2013). Many leading conservation organisations have since joined CMP to help further develop the Open Standards and associated tools. Working in partnership with CMP is the Conservation Coaches Network (CCNet); a collection of regional franchises that develop conservation coaches to support organisations implement the Open Standards. In addition, there is a growing body of literature that provides additional guidance on several aspects of the Open Standards or complementary project management approaches (Grantham et al., 2009; Knight, Cowling, & Campbell, 2006; Margoluis et al., 2013; McCarthy & Possingham, 2007; Salafsky, Margoluis, Redford, & Robinson, 2001; Stem, Margoluis, Salafsky, & Brown, 2005). Some conservation organisations (e.g. World Wide Fund for Nature, The Nature Conservancy, International Union for the Conservation of Nature) have also assigned dedicated staff, established processes, and created training aids to support their staff and other conservationists develop project management skills (IUCN, 2004; TNC, 2007; WWF, 2012). Conservationists wanting to apply project management principles to their work are also supported by a range of planning and decision making tools (Sarkar et al., 2006). Despite the considerable effort to build project management capacity in the conservation sector, few studies have attempted to assess the output of these efforts. Only two surveys, that we are aware of, have highlighted gaps in how conservation practitioners are applying some key project management processes and phases (O’Neill, 2007; Redford et al., 2015). The early indications from these studies were revealing. For example, a review of 37 conservation audits suggested that 90% of funds are supporting projects that have no means to verify the effectiveness of their efforts (O’Neill, 2007). The main explanatory concern raised by this study was that “few conservation projects follow formal, structured processes for monitoring, evaluating, adapting, and learning from their actions”. This finding may partially explain other studies that have highlighted the general and pervasive gap between conservation research and the application of effective conservation solutions (Knight et al., 2008; Schindler et al., 2011). The gaps in application of project management processes highlighted in this study may, in part, be related to a lack of project management skills in the conservation sector. As far as we are aware, however, no survey has specifically assessed the status of project management skills in this sector. This highlights a risk that the conservation sector as a whole may be lacking a key skill set that is essential for effectively delivering projects. The main objectives of this study were, therefore, to assess the status of project management skills in the conservation sector with respect to the need for project management skills, the demand for training in project management skills, the supply of training in project management skills, and the barriers to training in project management skills in the conservation sector. In order to help design and target project management skills training in the future, the study also investigated if there was any variation in perception between conservationists of different geographic regions or different levels of accountability. The study was carried out using an online survey targeting conservation practitioners and donors. The study’s findings are expected to help conservation organisations assess the need to provide their staff with additional training in project management in
127
order to help achieve conservation objectives. Likewise the study’s findings will help individual conservationists judge the importance of improving their project management skills to increase the effectiveness of their contribution to conservation. The study’s findings will also highlight barriers to training provision which organisations and training providers can aim to overcome to provide conservationists professional development in this discipline.
2. Materials and methods 2.1. Survey effort The online survey was created in English, using Google forms, and carried out in accordance with international standards of market research ethics (ICC/ESOMAR, 2007). Responses were collected over three weeks, from 22nd October to 12th November, 2014. The survey questions were directly linked to the survey objectives, and were a mix of multiple choice and open ended formats. The use of standardised multiple choice questions, Likert scale response options (Likert, 1931), and clear definitions of terms used in questions, were used to minimise measurement error related to possible inaccuracies of responses (Groves, 2004). The survey was sent out directly to a total of 481 author contacts and was posted to two conservation email groups. The survey covering letter also requested people to share with their colleagues. The target for the total number of responses was 100, and a basic response rate was measured by the proportion of author contacts that responded. The main target group of the survey were conservation practitioners (Non Government Organisation staff, government staff, and independent consultants) and donors, as these groups are all involved in assessing, supporting, or implementing conservation projects. However, responses from other categories of conservationists, such as trainers, teachers, and students, were also accepted to help build an overall assessment for the sector. The target of 100 total responses was assumed to overcome issues relating to nonresponse error (where non-respondents would have given different answers had they responded), and sampling error (heterogeneity in the response where individuals with identical attitudes or preferences might choose different answer categories) (Dillman & Bowker, 2001; Groves, 2004). However, the survey design did not take into account coverage error, as it did not provide sample selection to some of the overall population of conservation practitioners, so the results should be considered in the context of this potential source of error (Groves, 2004). To categorise respondents, they were asked to list the country they were employed in. The geographic coverage was then measured by the proportion of regions and the number and proportion of countries represented (as classified by the United Nations). Respondents were asked to categorise the type of organisation they worked for, and these data were used to calculate the proportion of respondents from each organisation category. Respondents were also asked to provide their job title, which was used to get an idea of the relative role of that respondent within their organisational hierarchy, categorised as high, medium, and low levels of accountability. This data was use to calculate the proportion of respondents from each level of accountability (Table 1).
Table 1 Examples of job titles corresponding to relative level of accountability within their organisation. Relative level of accountability
Example job titles
Low Medium High
Officer, assistant, student, scientist, conservationist, biologist, ranger, forester. Manager, coordinator, instructor, adviser, specialist, consultant, adviser, team leader, senior scientist, professor. Director, head, CEO, chair, dean, president.
128
A. Barlow et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 34 (2016) 126–132
Table 2 Definitions of some key project management skills. Project management skill
Definition
Situation analysis
Selecting and assessing the project’s biodiversity of interest, identifying threats and causal factors, completing stakeholder and actor analysis. Selecting and mapping actions to theories of change, setting objectives and outcomes, planning exit strategy, estimating budget and team needs. Selecting indicators, developing plan and methods, estimating budget and team needs. Detailed team planning, work planning and budgeting, managing implementation team and partners, implementing activities, tracking progress and spend, managing risks.
Planning conservation actions Planning monitoring and evaluation Implementation (of conservation actions/monitoring and evaluation/exit strategy)
Notes: The situation analysis and planning conservation actions skills were developed with reference to the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (CMP, 2013), and the planning, monitoring and evaluation, and implementation skills were described with reference to the Project Manager Competency Development Framework (PMI Standards Committee, 2002).
2.2. Assessing the need for project management skills in conservation The need for project management skills (as defined in Table 2) was assessed by the proportion of respondents agreeing to the statement “Well managed conservation projects are essential for achieving measurable conservation impact” and the proportion of respondents that considered project management skills as important for being effective in their current role. Respondents were also asked to rate their current and desired future project management skill levels as needed to be effective in their current role. The difference between the current and desired competencies was then used to calculate the proportion of respondents with more than sufficient, sufficient, and insufficient project management skill sets needed to be effective in their current role. 2.3. Assessing the demand for training in project management skills The demand for training in project management skills was assessed by the proportion of respondents agreeing to the statement “To increase measurable conservation impact it is essential that conservationists receive more training in project management skills” and the proportion of respondents indicating that they would be interested in receiving further training in the different project management skill sets. 2.4. Assessing the supply of training in project management skills The supply of training in project management skills was assessed by the proportion of respondents that had received project management training, the type of training that they had received, and the proportion or respondents who had certification in project management skills. Respondents were also asked to list the organisations which had supplied the project management training. 2.5. Assessing the barriers to training in project management The barriers to project management training were assessed by the proportion of respondents agreeing to the statement “There is a lack of training opportunities in the conservation sector and this is reducing our chances of achieving successful conservation”. Respondents were then asked to classify a range of potential barriers to project management training in terms of being a major barrier, minor barrier, or not a barrier. 2.6. Assessing variation in perception We used ordinal regressions models to test whether a respondent’s region in which they lived or their accountability level were significant predictors of responses to the survey questions.
The ordinal regression models were constructed in R 2.5.0 (R, 2013), using the ‘clm’ function in the ordinal package (Christensen, 2014). This approach enables building regression models that take into account the categorical nature of the response variable (Christensen & Brockhoff, 2013). The global models were considered for the analysis. 3. Results 3.1. Survey response We received a total of 250 responses to the survey. Of those responses, 117 (47%) were from author contacts and 133 (53%) were from conservationists that may have received the survey through an email group or from a colleague. The overall response rate from the original contact list of 481 was 24%. Responses were received from conservationists representing all 5 geographic regions, and 22% (52) of countries (Fig. 1). Most responses were from Asia (36.8%), the Americas (33.2%) and Europe (20.8%), with less representation from Africa (6.8%) and Oceania (2.4%). Within the Asia region there was a particularly high representation from India (7.2% of all responses), Bangladesh (6.4%), and Nepal (4.4%). From the Americas the USA had the highest proportion of responses (22% of all responses), followed by Canada (4.8%). The UK had the most responses (12% of all responses) of any European country (Fig. 1). Responses were received from conservationists representing a total of 141 organisations. Most responses (84%) were from practitioners (NGO staff, government staff, independent consultants), with less representation from donors (4%) and other groups (Table 3). 3.2. Need for project management skills in conservation Nearly all (99%) of respondents agreed with the statement that “Well managed conservation projects are essential for achieving measurable conservation impact”, and 98% of respondents thought Table 3 Responses by type of organisation. Type of organisation
No. of responses
%
Conservation NGO Government organisation Consultant Academic Training organisation Donor organisation Other Total
170 45 15 15 13 12 3 273
62.3% 16.5% 5.5% 5.5% 4.8% 4.4% 1.1% 100%
Note: The total (273) is greater than the total number of responses (250) because some respondents classified their organisation by more than one type.
A. Barlow et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 34 (2016) 126–132
129
Fig. 1. Number of responses to survey by country.
that project management skills were important for them to be effective in their current role. When asked which of a list of project management skills were important for them to be effective in their current role, 94% identified planning monitoring and evaluation skills, 93% identified planning conservation actions, 91% identified situation analysis, and 90% identified implementation skills as important. The difference between current and desired skills levels (by respondents’ self evaluations) indicated that the majority had insufficient competency in planning monitoring and evaluation (75%), implementation (68%), planning conservation actions (67%), and situation analysis (66%) (Fig. 2). Additional open-ended comments summed up the need for project management skills in the conservation sector: “It is important to have all the project management skills simultaneously at least to an ‘acceptable’ level to ensure successful conservation impacts”, and “my country is littered with the detritus of ill founded, ill funded, unsustainable projects. Strong management is a key to implementing the right projects in the right manner.” 3.3. Demand for training in project management skills Most (95%) of respondents agreed with the statement “To increase measurable conservation impact it is essential that conservationists receive more training in project management skills”. A majority of respondents indicated that they were interested in
receiving further training in planning monitoring and evaluation (84%), situation analysis (80%), planning conservation actions (80%), and implementation (76%).
3.4. Supply of training in project management skills Of all respondents, 70% had received project management training before, but only 10% had any type of project management certification. The most common types of training previously received were informal on-the-job training provided by colleagues (mentioned by 47% of respondents that had received training), classroom training provided by an external (non-academic) provider (35%), and classroom training provided by colleagues (28%) (Fig. 3). The importance of certification of training was summed up by one respondent’s comments: “I think any development of courses or tests that result in certification would be excellent. I hope any such development is in coordination with the Conservation Measures Partnership. A certificate for a ‘certified instructor’ on this topic would also be excellent to see.” A total of 123 organisations were identified as providers of some kind of project management training, with 50% of those being conservation practitioner organisations, 47% training organisations (including universities and professional training providers), and 3% other. A majority (78%) of the training providers were only mentioned once by respondents as a supplier of training, with 22% mentioned more than once, with the World Wide Fund for Nature Conservation mentioned by the greatest proportion respondents (Fig. 4).
3.5. Barriers to training in project management
Fig. 2. Levels of insufficient, sufficient, and more than sufficient competency in project management skills.
Over half (65%) of respondents agreed with the statement that “There is a lack of training opportunities in the conservation sector and this is reducing our chances of achieving successful conservation”. Respondents identified a number of barriers to receiving project management training: lack of funds (identified by 92%), lack of time (89%), lack of training courses near to where respondents work (82%), lack of training courses (82%), and lack of institutional value for project management skills (62%) (Fig. 5). Two respondents’ comments in particular identified additional barriers in more depth: “We provide access to training and other resources, but there is no systematic reward for completion of training. Nor is there an institutionalized, consistent, or evaluative recognition of these skill sets”, and “There isn’t a lack of training courses in project management, but there is a lack of courses for project management for conservation, so specialized courses would be helpful.”
130
A. Barlow et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 34 (2016) 126–132
Fig. 3. Types of project management training previously received.
Fig. 4. Proportion of respondents trained per training provider. Only training providers training more than one respondent are included.
3.6. Variation in perception There were significant differences in perceptions between conservationists from different regions and levels of accountability. Compared to Asian conservationists, European conservationists were significantly less likely to value the importance of the situation analysis (estimate = −1.14 ± 0.37 (SE), p < 0.01), planning conservation actions (estimate = −1.28 ± 0.39 (SE), p < 0.01), and implementation (estimate = −1.14 ± 0.38 (SE), p < 0.01) skill sets to be effective in their current role. European conservationists were also significantly less likely to rate their skills in situation analysis (estimate = −0.85 ± 0.32 (SE), p < 0.01), planning conservation
actions (estimate = −0.85 ± 0.32 (SE), p < 0.001), or implementation (estimate = −0.75 ± 0.33 (SE), p < 0.05) as high, compared with participants from Asia. Conservationists from the Americas were significantly more likely (estimate = 0.63 ± 0.29 (SE), p < 0.05) to rate their current skill level in planning, monitoring, and evaluation as higher than those from Asia. Conservationists from Oceania were significantly less likely to rate their desired future level of skills in planning conservation actions as high compared with those from Asia (estimate = −2.31 ± 0.87 (SE), p < 0.01). Conservationists with high and medium levels of accountability were significantly more likely to rate their skills in situation analysis (high estimate = 1.13 ± 0.37 (SE), p < 0.01, medium estimate = 0.86 ± 0.31 (SE), p < 0.01), planning conservation actions (high estimate = 1.13 ± 0.37 (SE), p < 0.01, medium estimate = 0.86 ± 0.31 (SE), p < 0.01), and implementation (high estimate = 1.65 ± 0.38 (SE), p < 0.001, medium estimate = 0.81 ± 0.32 (SE), p < 0.05) as higher than those with a relatively lower level of accountability. Conservationists with a medium level of accountability were also significantly less likely than conservationists with a low level of accountability (estimate = −0.86 ± 0.33 (SE), p < 0.01) to strongly agree that there is a lack of project management training opportunities in the conservation sector that is reducing the chances of achieving successful conservation. 4. Discussion 4.1. Survey response
Fig. 5. Barriers to project management training.
The total number of responses exceeded the target number by 150%, the geographic and institutional coverage of the sur-
A. Barlow et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 34 (2016) 126–132
vey was widespread, and conservation practitioners provided the vast majority of responses. Any geographic or institutional bias in responses is likely due to the author contact list, which was developed through work in mainly South Asian countries. Expansion of the current contact list to include more donors, countries, and organisations not yet represented would improve the inference of future surveys. The relatively lower proportion of high accountability roles was expected considering the proportionally lower number of those roles in a given organisation. It might be expected that there would be a larger proportion of people with low accountability available to respond, but this group was the least represented. This could be a result of low numbers of this group represented in the author contact list, the survey reach being limited to those people who had internet access and could respond in English, or the survey may not have appealed to lower accountability roles who may not be as responsible for incorporating project management into their day-to-day work and that of their teams. There are a number of additional ways in which future surveys could be improved. For example, the wording of some of the survey questions (e.g. how well do you agree with the following statement “Well managed conservation projects are essential for achieving measurable conservation impact”) could have been improved to gain more insight and avoid unintentionally encouraging a high degree of affirmation. Future surveys that explicitly investigate and account for the possible effects of non-response and sampling error would also have a strengthened inference (Groves, 2004). This survey also focused on knowledge-based project management skills (e.g. monitoring and evaluation), so further research would be needed to evaluate the values, application, and benefit of the softer, people management skills that are also essential for effective project management (PMI Standards Committee, 2002). Overall, considering the representation of regions, countries, organisations and accountability levels of respondents, and the unequivocal nature of the responses, we think the survey results provide a reasonable initial inference for the conservation sector as a whole, but that results should not be considered definitive due to possible coverage error (Groves, 2004). 4.2. Need for project management skills in conservation This need for project management skills in conservation, highlighted by the respondents in this survey, is in line with earlier suggestions by Knight et al. (2008) who recommended “training students in skills for ‘doing conservation’. The results of the current study, however, suggest that it is important to expand the need for such training for other groups such as practitioners and donors. In addition, it seems reasonable to conclude that a majority if conservationists, often with relatively high and medium levels of accountability, continuing to work at below their desired level of performance in project management will greatly reduce the conservation impact their respective organisations are able to achieve. 4.3. Supply and demand The survey indicated an overwhelming demand for training in project management skills, but only a small minority of respondents had any kind of certification in this discipline. Certification is a way of ensuring standardisation in skill levels and knowledge that may otherwise not be available, because informal, on-the-job training provided by colleagues will be inherently variable in quality, effectiveness, and applicability. The lack of certification may, in part, be a reflection of the small number of organisations identified in the survey that specialise in providing training in project management.
131
The insufficient supply of certified project management training for the conservation sector, makes it difficult to assess the quality of training efforts or individual skill levels, and reduces the opportunities for conservationists to acquire standardised, transferable skills that can enhance their conservation efforts and support their career development. The general lack of project management skills development may also be related to the current content of conservation courses in universities (Blickley et al., 2013, Muir & Schwartz, 2009), and a reflection of how the project management skill set is viewed by conservationists. Project management is a key skill highlighted in conservation-related job adverts, but it seems that in some cases conservation professionals may consider project management to be something that is gained from the experience of carrying out research (Blickley et al., 2013), or can learnt on the job (Muir & Schwartz, 2009), rather than a discipline in its own right, requiring certification to indicate competence. In other cases, project management may not even be highlighted by conservation leaders as a key, desirable skill (Langholz & Abeles, 2014). 4.4. Barriers to training in project management There was respondent perception that a lack of institutional support is a barrier to training in some cases. The lack of funds may also be an indication that institutions and individuals find it difficult to raise funds to support training of their staff, and/or that donors do not provide sufficient funds to support project management training for practitioners. Even if there were funds, time, and institutional support, however, then conservationists may still not have the opportunities available to develop their project management skills due to a lack of available training courses. 4.5. Variation in perception The geographical variance in the perceived values of project management skill areas suggests that Asian conservationists are currently more open to receive training and motivated to apply project management approaches to the conservation project they are working on. It is not clear why European conservationists value the project management skill sets the least, but it may be a simple reflection of their familiarity and competency in these areas, as this group also were found to be less likely to rate themselves as highly skilled. Perhaps unsurprisingly, conservationists with high or medium levels of accountability thought themselves more skilled than those of lower accountability, as these high and medium groups will probably have accumulated more experience in managing projects during their career. The fact that conservationists with a medium level of accountability were less likely than those with lower levels of accountability to strongly agree that there is a lack of project management training opportunities in the conservation sector that is reducing the chances of achieving successful conservation, may indicate that those with low accountability roles more acutely feel the brunt of inefficiencies in how they are managed (by the medium accountability roles). 4.6. Implications This survey highlighted a perceived link between project management skills and impact in the conservation sector, and also showed the need for, and lack of, project management training. The current low level supply of certified project management training for the conservation sector may, therefore, be a contributing factor that explains how 90% of funds are supporting projects that have no means to verify the effectiveness of their efforts (O’Neill, 2007).
132
A. Barlow et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 34 (2016) 126–132
To help improve conservation impact we recommend (a) the strengthening of project management guidelines currently available for the conservation sector, and (b) the provision of improved, certified, affordable, online and class-based training courses in project management. Such training courses could be provided by learning institutions, conservation organisations, or consultants. Alternatively, the gap in this skill set could be filed by conservation organisations hiring trained project managers from the business sector to run their projects, and use the classically trained conservationists as technical experts to provide information and advice as needed. We believe that improved project management skills will then enable conservation organisations to better link activities to results, implement activities more efficiently (through better control of time, budget, and quality), monitor outcomes, and adapt to changing conditions. The increased effectiveness of an organisation’s project management approach will help increase the likelihood of achieving desired results within a set timeframe and budget. Conservation organisations applying better project management approaches may then achieve more impact and utilise donor funds to greater effect. Likewise, on an individual level, improved project management skills may increase the likelihood of gaining employment or greater levels of responsibility in the conservation sector. However, it is important to note that these potential benefits of improved project management skills in the conservation sector are either derived from peoples’ perceptions or comparisons to different sectors. Further research is, therefore, needed to investigate the effect of project management skills on conservation success. Acknowledgements We are very grateful to all the conservationists who spent their time completing the survey and providing us with their valuable insights. Earlier drafts of the survey were improved thanks to the review and suggestions of Pete Cutter (Spatial Informatics Group), Jon Slaght (Wildlife Conservation Society), Cath Lawson (World Wide Fund for Nature), and two anonymous reviewers. Funding for this research was provided by an anonymous, private donor. References Al Neimat, T. (2005). Why IT projects fail. In The project perfect white paper collection. pp. 8. Blickley, J. L., Deiner, K., Garbach, K., Lacher, I., Meek, M. H., Porensky, L. M., et al. (2013). Graduate student’s guide to necessary skills for non-academic conservation careers. Conservation Biology, 27, 24–34. CMP. (2013). The open standards for the practice of conservation v3.0. Christensen, R. H. B., & Brockhoff, P. B. (2013). Analysis of sensory ratings data with cumulative link models: Analyse des observations des évaluations sensorielles avec cumulative link models. Journal De La Société Franc¸aise De Statistique, 154, 58–79. Christensen, R. (2014). Package ordinal regression models for ordinal data.. http:// www.cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ordinal/index.html (Accessed 16.09.15) Chua, A., & Lam, W. (2005). Why KM projects fail: A multi-case analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9, 6–17. Crawford, L., Pollack, J., & England, D. (2006). Uncovering the trends in project management: Journal emphases over the last 10 years. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 175–184. Dillman, D. A., & Bowker, D. K. (2001). The web questionnaire challenge to survey methodologists. Online Social Sciences, 53–71.
Grantham, H. S., Bode, M., McDonald-Madden, E., Game, E. T., Knight, A. T., & Possingham, H. P. (2009). Effective conservation planning requires learning and adaptation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8, 431–437. Groves, R. M. (2004). . Survey errors and survey costs (vol. 536) John Wiley and Sons. Grumbine, R. E. (1994). What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology, 8, 27–38. Holling, C. S., & Meffe, G. K. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology, 10, 328–337. Holling, C. S. (Ed.). (1978). Adaptive environmental assessment and management. New York: Wiley. Humphrey, W. S. (2005). Why big software projects fail: The 12 key questions. ICC/ESOMAR. (2007). International code on market and social research. IUCN. (2004). Core concepts in planning, monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) of Projects in IUCN. IUCN report. Knight, A. T., Cowling, R. M., & Campbell, B. M. (2006). An operational model for implementing conservation action. Conservation Biology, 20, 408–419. Knight, A. T., Cowling, R. M., Rouget, M., Balmford, A., Lombard, A. T., & Campbell, B. M. (2008). Knowing but not doing: Selecting priority conservation areas and the research–implementation gap. Conservation Biology, 22, 610–617. Langholz, J. A., & Abeles, A. (2014). Rethinking postgraduate education for marine conservation. Marine Policy, 43, 372–375. Likert, R. (1931). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22, 1–55. Margoluis, R., Stem, C., Brown, M., Johnson, A., Placci, G., Salafsky, N., et al. (2013). Results chains: A tool for conservation action design, management and evaluation. Ecology and Society, 18, 22. McCarthy, M. A., & Possingham, H. P. (2007). Active adaptive management for conservation. Conservation Biology, 21, 956–963. McDonald-Madden, E., Probert, W. J. M., Hauser, C. E., Runge, M. C., Possingham, H. P., Jones, M. E., et al. (2010). Active adaptive conservation of threatened species in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications, 20, 1476–1489. Milosevic, D., & Patanakul, P. (2005). Standardized project management may increase development projects success. International Journal of Project Management, 23, 181–192. Muir, M. J., & Schwartz, M. W. (2009). Academic research training for a non-academic workplace: A case study of graduate student alumni who work in conservation. Conservation Biology, 23, 1357–1368. O’Neill, L. (2007). Auditing the conservation process; lessons learned, 2003–2007. CMP Report. PMI Standards Committee. (2002). Project manager competency development (PMCD) framework. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, Chicago: Project Management Institute (PMI). Parma, A. M. (1998). What can adaptive management do for our fish, forests, food, and biodiversity? Integrative Biology: Issues, News and Reviews, 1, 16–26. Patanakul, P., Lewwongcharoen, B., & Milosevic, D. (2010). An empirical study on the use of project management tools and techniques across project life-cycle and their impact on project success. Journal of General Management, 35, 41–65. R Development Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing (Accessed Feb 2013). http://www.r-project.org/ Redford, et al. (2015). Summative evaluation of conservation measures partnership and Conservation Coaches Network to strengthen results-based management in conservation. Salafsky, N., Margoluis, R., Redford, K. H., & Robinson, J. G. (2001). Improving the practice of conservation: A conceptual framework and research addenda for conservation science. Conservation Biology, 16, 1469–1479. Sarkar, S., Pressey, R. L., Faith, D. P., Margules, C. R., Fuller, T., Stoms, D. M., et al. (2006). Biodiversity conservation planning tools: Present status and challenges for the future. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31, 123–159. Schindler, S., Curado, N., Nikolov, S., Kret, E., Carcamo, B., Porazidas, K., et al. (2011). From research to implementation: Nature conservation in the Eastern Rhodopes mountains (Greece and Bulgaria), European Green Belt. Journal for Nature Conservation, 19, 193–201. Stem, C., Margoluis, R., Salafsky, S., & Brown, M. (2005). Conservation Biology, 19, 295–309. TNC. (2007). Conservation action planning handbook. TNC report. Teller, J., Unger, B. N., Kock, A., & Gemünden, H. G. (2012). Formalization of project portfolio management: The moderating role of project portfolio complexity. International Journal of Project Management, 30, 596–607. WWF. (2012). WWF Standards of conservation project and programme management (PPMS). WWF report. Wilhere, G. F. (2002). Adaptive management in habitat conservation plans. Conservation Biology, 16, 20–29.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal for Nature Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.de/jnc
A rapid assessment of the current status of project management skills in the conservation sector Adam Barlow ∗ , Christina Greenwood Barlow, Lucy Boddam-Whetham, Beth Robinson WildTeam Conservation, Surfside, Trelantis, St Merryn, Padstow PL28 8NU, Cornwall, UK
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 9 December 2015 Received in revised form 14 October 2016 Accepted 18 October 2016 Keywords: Project management skills Conservation sector Training
a b s t r a c t A lack of project management skills in the conservation sector may, in part, be contributing to the gap between conservation research and implementation. This study used an online survey to assess the need for project management skills, the demand and supply of project management training, and the barriers to that training in the conservation sector. We received a total of 250 responses from conservationists representing 141 organisations and 52 countries. Ninety eight percent of respondents thought that project management skills were important for them to be effective in their current role, but over 66% of respondents assessed themselves as having insufficient competency in project management skills. Seventy percent of respondents reported receiving project management training before, but only 10% had project management certification. Over 75% of respondents were interested in additional training, but lack of funds was identified as a major barrier to receiving training. European conservationists valued project management skills less than conservationists from Asia. The results suggest that an increased availability of affordable, certified project management training would enable the conservation sector as a whole to achieve more measurable impact. © 2016 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The discipline of project management is widely used in the engineering, technology, business, and development sectors to improve the success of projects while controlling costs, time, and quality under changing conditions (Crawford, Pollack, & England, 2006; Milosevic & Patanakul, 2005; Patanakul, Lewwongcharoen, & Milosevic, 2010; Teller, Unger, Kock, & Gemünden, 2012). Conversely, the application of inappropriate or inadequate project management approaches has been shown to lead to project failure in these sectors (Al Neimat, 2005; Chua, & Lam, 2005; Humphrey, 2005). For over three decades, the need for improved planning, implementation, and evaluation of efforts has been highlighted as essential for enabling conservation projects to adapt to changing conditions, measure the impact of their efforts, and improve the chances of achieving impact (Grumbine, 1994; Holling & Meffe, 1996; Holling, 1978). Conservation is implemented through activities which can be grouped together into projects. For conservation
∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Barlow), [email protected] (C.G. Barlow), [email protected] (L. Boddam-Whetham). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2016.10.003 1617-1381/© 2016 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
purposes, a project can be defined as “a temporary effort to achieve a set of desired conservation results within a defined schedule and budget”. Projects are implemented by application of a project management approach which, for conservation purposes, can be defined as “the planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of a wildlife conservation project to achieve desired conservation results within a defined schedule and budget”. For conservation, there is no empirical research into the relationship of project management approaches and project success (which can be defined as delivering conservation results within a defined schedule and cost), but it seems reasonable to assume that the implementation of inadequate project management approaches will likewise lead to a higher likelihood of project failure in this sector. Acting on this assumption, over the last two decades, project management approaches have been gradually developed, tailored, and integrated into the conservation sector as a means to help improve implementation of conservation initiatives (McDonald-Madden et al., 2010; Parma, 1998; Wilhere, 2002). There has also been a growing effort over the past decade to build the capacity of conservationists in project management skills and to standardise best practice in this discipline. In 2002, for example, the Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP) was created as a collaborative platform to develop a set of guidelines (The Open
A. Barlow et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 34 (2016) 126–132
Standards for the Practice of Conservation) to help practitioners adaptively manage conservation projects of any size (CMP, 2013). Many leading conservation organisations have since joined CMP to help further develop the Open Standards and associated tools. Working in partnership with CMP is the Conservation Coaches Network (CCNet); a collection of regional franchises that develop conservation coaches to support organisations implement the Open Standards. In addition, there is a growing body of literature that provides additional guidance on several aspects of the Open Standards or complementary project management approaches (Grantham et al., 2009; Knight, Cowling, & Campbell, 2006; Margoluis et al., 2013; McCarthy & Possingham, 2007; Salafsky, Margoluis, Redford, & Robinson, 2001; Stem, Margoluis, Salafsky, & Brown, 2005). Some conservation organisations (e.g. World Wide Fund for Nature, The Nature Conservancy, International Union for the Conservation of Nature) have also assigned dedicated staff, established processes, and created training aids to support their staff and other conservationists develop project management skills (IUCN, 2004; TNC, 2007; WWF, 2012). Conservationists wanting to apply project management principles to their work are also supported by a range of planning and decision making tools (Sarkar et al., 2006). Despite the considerable effort to build project management capacity in the conservation sector, few studies have attempted to assess the output of these efforts. Only two surveys, that we are aware of, have highlighted gaps in how conservation practitioners are applying some key project management processes and phases (O’Neill, 2007; Redford et al., 2015). The early indications from these studies were revealing. For example, a review of 37 conservation audits suggested that 90% of funds are supporting projects that have no means to verify the effectiveness of their efforts (O’Neill, 2007). The main explanatory concern raised by this study was that “few conservation projects follow formal, structured processes for monitoring, evaluating, adapting, and learning from their actions”. This finding may partially explain other studies that have highlighted the general and pervasive gap between conservation research and the application of effective conservation solutions (Knight et al., 2008; Schindler et al., 2011). The gaps in application of project management processes highlighted in this study may, in part, be related to a lack of project management skills in the conservation sector. As far as we are aware, however, no survey has specifically assessed the status of project management skills in this sector. This highlights a risk that the conservation sector as a whole may be lacking a key skill set that is essential for effectively delivering projects. The main objectives of this study were, therefore, to assess the status of project management skills in the conservation sector with respect to the need for project management skills, the demand for training in project management skills, the supply of training in project management skills, and the barriers to training in project management skills in the conservation sector. In order to help design and target project management skills training in the future, the study also investigated if there was any variation in perception between conservationists of different geographic regions or different levels of accountability. The study was carried out using an online survey targeting conservation practitioners and donors. The study’s findings are expected to help conservation organisations assess the need to provide their staff with additional training in project management in
127
order to help achieve conservation objectives. Likewise the study’s findings will help individual conservationists judge the importance of improving their project management skills to increase the effectiveness of their contribution to conservation. The study’s findings will also highlight barriers to training provision which organisations and training providers can aim to overcome to provide conservationists professional development in this discipline.
2. Materials and methods 2.1. Survey effort The online survey was created in English, using Google forms, and carried out in accordance with international standards of market research ethics (ICC/ESOMAR, 2007). Responses were collected over three weeks, from 22nd October to 12th November, 2014. The survey questions were directly linked to the survey objectives, and were a mix of multiple choice and open ended formats. The use of standardised multiple choice questions, Likert scale response options (Likert, 1931), and clear definitions of terms used in questions, were used to minimise measurement error related to possible inaccuracies of responses (Groves, 2004). The survey was sent out directly to a total of 481 author contacts and was posted to two conservation email groups. The survey covering letter also requested people to share with their colleagues. The target for the total number of responses was 100, and a basic response rate was measured by the proportion of author contacts that responded. The main target group of the survey were conservation practitioners (Non Government Organisation staff, government staff, and independent consultants) and donors, as these groups are all involved in assessing, supporting, or implementing conservation projects. However, responses from other categories of conservationists, such as trainers, teachers, and students, were also accepted to help build an overall assessment for the sector. The target of 100 total responses was assumed to overcome issues relating to nonresponse error (where non-respondents would have given different answers had they responded), and sampling error (heterogeneity in the response where individuals with identical attitudes or preferences might choose different answer categories) (Dillman & Bowker, 2001; Groves, 2004). However, the survey design did not take into account coverage error, as it did not provide sample selection to some of the overall population of conservation practitioners, so the results should be considered in the context of this potential source of error (Groves, 2004). To categorise respondents, they were asked to list the country they were employed in. The geographic coverage was then measured by the proportion of regions and the number and proportion of countries represented (as classified by the United Nations). Respondents were asked to categorise the type of organisation they worked for, and these data were used to calculate the proportion of respondents from each organisation category. Respondents were also asked to provide their job title, which was used to get an idea of the relative role of that respondent within their organisational hierarchy, categorised as high, medium, and low levels of accountability. This data was use to calculate the proportion of respondents from each level of accountability (Table 1).
Table 1 Examples of job titles corresponding to relative level of accountability within their organisation. Relative level of accountability
Example job titles
Low Medium High
Officer, assistant, student, scientist, conservationist, biologist, ranger, forester. Manager, coordinator, instructor, adviser, specialist, consultant, adviser, team leader, senior scientist, professor. Director, head, CEO, chair, dean, president.
128
A. Barlow et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 34 (2016) 126–132
Table 2 Definitions of some key project management skills. Project management skill
Definition
Situation analysis
Selecting and assessing the project’s biodiversity of interest, identifying threats and causal factors, completing stakeholder and actor analysis. Selecting and mapping actions to theories of change, setting objectives and outcomes, planning exit strategy, estimating budget and team needs. Selecting indicators, developing plan and methods, estimating budget and team needs. Detailed team planning, work planning and budgeting, managing implementation team and partners, implementing activities, tracking progress and spend, managing risks.
Planning conservation actions Planning monitoring and evaluation Implementation (of conservation actions/monitoring and evaluation/exit strategy)
Notes: The situation analysis and planning conservation actions skills were developed with reference to the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (CMP, 2013), and the planning, monitoring and evaluation, and implementation skills were described with reference to the Project Manager Competency Development Framework (PMI Standards Committee, 2002).
2.2. Assessing the need for project management skills in conservation The need for project management skills (as defined in Table 2) was assessed by the proportion of respondents agreeing to the statement “Well managed conservation projects are essential for achieving measurable conservation impact” and the proportion of respondents that considered project management skills as important for being effective in their current role. Respondents were also asked to rate their current and desired future project management skill levels as needed to be effective in their current role. The difference between the current and desired competencies was then used to calculate the proportion of respondents with more than sufficient, sufficient, and insufficient project management skill sets needed to be effective in their current role. 2.3. Assessing the demand for training in project management skills The demand for training in project management skills was assessed by the proportion of respondents agreeing to the statement “To increase measurable conservation impact it is essential that conservationists receive more training in project management skills” and the proportion of respondents indicating that they would be interested in receiving further training in the different project management skill sets. 2.4. Assessing the supply of training in project management skills The supply of training in project management skills was assessed by the proportion of respondents that had received project management training, the type of training that they had received, and the proportion or respondents who had certification in project management skills. Respondents were also asked to list the organisations which had supplied the project management training. 2.5. Assessing the barriers to training in project management The barriers to project management training were assessed by the proportion of respondents agreeing to the statement “There is a lack of training opportunities in the conservation sector and this is reducing our chances of achieving successful conservation”. Respondents were then asked to classify a range of potential barriers to project management training in terms of being a major barrier, minor barrier, or not a barrier. 2.6. Assessing variation in perception We used ordinal regressions models to test whether a respondent’s region in which they lived or their accountability level were significant predictors of responses to the survey questions.
The ordinal regression models were constructed in R 2.5.0 (R, 2013), using the ‘clm’ function in the ordinal package (Christensen, 2014). This approach enables building regression models that take into account the categorical nature of the response variable (Christensen & Brockhoff, 2013). The global models were considered for the analysis. 3. Results 3.1. Survey response We received a total of 250 responses to the survey. Of those responses, 117 (47%) were from author contacts and 133 (53%) were from conservationists that may have received the survey through an email group or from a colleague. The overall response rate from the original contact list of 481 was 24%. Responses were received from conservationists representing all 5 geographic regions, and 22% (52) of countries (Fig. 1). Most responses were from Asia (36.8%), the Americas (33.2%) and Europe (20.8%), with less representation from Africa (6.8%) and Oceania (2.4%). Within the Asia region there was a particularly high representation from India (7.2% of all responses), Bangladesh (6.4%), and Nepal (4.4%). From the Americas the USA had the highest proportion of responses (22% of all responses), followed by Canada (4.8%). The UK had the most responses (12% of all responses) of any European country (Fig. 1). Responses were received from conservationists representing a total of 141 organisations. Most responses (84%) were from practitioners (NGO staff, government staff, independent consultants), with less representation from donors (4%) and other groups (Table 3). 3.2. Need for project management skills in conservation Nearly all (99%) of respondents agreed with the statement that “Well managed conservation projects are essential for achieving measurable conservation impact”, and 98% of respondents thought Table 3 Responses by type of organisation. Type of organisation
No. of responses
%
Conservation NGO Government organisation Consultant Academic Training organisation Donor organisation Other Total
170 45 15 15 13 12 3 273
62.3% 16.5% 5.5% 5.5% 4.8% 4.4% 1.1% 100%
Note: The total (273) is greater than the total number of responses (250) because some respondents classified their organisation by more than one type.
A. Barlow et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 34 (2016) 126–132
129
Fig. 1. Number of responses to survey by country.
that project management skills were important for them to be effective in their current role. When asked which of a list of project management skills were important for them to be effective in their current role, 94% identified planning monitoring and evaluation skills, 93% identified planning conservation actions, 91% identified situation analysis, and 90% identified implementation skills as important. The difference between current and desired skills levels (by respondents’ self evaluations) indicated that the majority had insufficient competency in planning monitoring and evaluation (75%), implementation (68%), planning conservation actions (67%), and situation analysis (66%) (Fig. 2). Additional open-ended comments summed up the need for project management skills in the conservation sector: “It is important to have all the project management skills simultaneously at least to an ‘acceptable’ level to ensure successful conservation impacts”, and “my country is littered with the detritus of ill founded, ill funded, unsustainable projects. Strong management is a key to implementing the right projects in the right manner.” 3.3. Demand for training in project management skills Most (95%) of respondents agreed with the statement “To increase measurable conservation impact it is essential that conservationists receive more training in project management skills”. A majority of respondents indicated that they were interested in
receiving further training in planning monitoring and evaluation (84%), situation analysis (80%), planning conservation actions (80%), and implementation (76%).
3.4. Supply of training in project management skills Of all respondents, 70% had received project management training before, but only 10% had any type of project management certification. The most common types of training previously received were informal on-the-job training provided by colleagues (mentioned by 47% of respondents that had received training), classroom training provided by an external (non-academic) provider (35%), and classroom training provided by colleagues (28%) (Fig. 3). The importance of certification of training was summed up by one respondent’s comments: “I think any development of courses or tests that result in certification would be excellent. I hope any such development is in coordination with the Conservation Measures Partnership. A certificate for a ‘certified instructor’ on this topic would also be excellent to see.” A total of 123 organisations were identified as providers of some kind of project management training, with 50% of those being conservation practitioner organisations, 47% training organisations (including universities and professional training providers), and 3% other. A majority (78%) of the training providers were only mentioned once by respondents as a supplier of training, with 22% mentioned more than once, with the World Wide Fund for Nature Conservation mentioned by the greatest proportion respondents (Fig. 4).
3.5. Barriers to training in project management
Fig. 2. Levels of insufficient, sufficient, and more than sufficient competency in project management skills.
Over half (65%) of respondents agreed with the statement that “There is a lack of training opportunities in the conservation sector and this is reducing our chances of achieving successful conservation”. Respondents identified a number of barriers to receiving project management training: lack of funds (identified by 92%), lack of time (89%), lack of training courses near to where respondents work (82%), lack of training courses (82%), and lack of institutional value for project management skills (62%) (Fig. 5). Two respondents’ comments in particular identified additional barriers in more depth: “We provide access to training and other resources, but there is no systematic reward for completion of training. Nor is there an institutionalized, consistent, or evaluative recognition of these skill sets”, and “There isn’t a lack of training courses in project management, but there is a lack of courses for project management for conservation, so specialized courses would be helpful.”
130
A. Barlow et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 34 (2016) 126–132
Fig. 3. Types of project management training previously received.
Fig. 4. Proportion of respondents trained per training provider. Only training providers training more than one respondent are included.
3.6. Variation in perception There were significant differences in perceptions between conservationists from different regions and levels of accountability. Compared to Asian conservationists, European conservationists were significantly less likely to value the importance of the situation analysis (estimate = −1.14 ± 0.37 (SE), p < 0.01), planning conservation actions (estimate = −1.28 ± 0.39 (SE), p < 0.01), and implementation (estimate = −1.14 ± 0.38 (SE), p < 0.01) skill sets to be effective in their current role. European conservationists were also significantly less likely to rate their skills in situation analysis (estimate = −0.85 ± 0.32 (SE), p < 0.01), planning conservation
actions (estimate = −0.85 ± 0.32 (SE), p < 0.001), or implementation (estimate = −0.75 ± 0.33 (SE), p < 0.05) as high, compared with participants from Asia. Conservationists from the Americas were significantly more likely (estimate = 0.63 ± 0.29 (SE), p < 0.05) to rate their current skill level in planning, monitoring, and evaluation as higher than those from Asia. Conservationists from Oceania were significantly less likely to rate their desired future level of skills in planning conservation actions as high compared with those from Asia (estimate = −2.31 ± 0.87 (SE), p < 0.01). Conservationists with high and medium levels of accountability were significantly more likely to rate their skills in situation analysis (high estimate = 1.13 ± 0.37 (SE), p < 0.01, medium estimate = 0.86 ± 0.31 (SE), p < 0.01), planning conservation actions (high estimate = 1.13 ± 0.37 (SE), p < 0.01, medium estimate = 0.86 ± 0.31 (SE), p < 0.01), and implementation (high estimate = 1.65 ± 0.38 (SE), p < 0.001, medium estimate = 0.81 ± 0.32 (SE), p < 0.05) as higher than those with a relatively lower level of accountability. Conservationists with a medium level of accountability were also significantly less likely than conservationists with a low level of accountability (estimate = −0.86 ± 0.33 (SE), p < 0.01) to strongly agree that there is a lack of project management training opportunities in the conservation sector that is reducing the chances of achieving successful conservation. 4. Discussion 4.1. Survey response
Fig. 5. Barriers to project management training.
The total number of responses exceeded the target number by 150%, the geographic and institutional coverage of the sur-
A. Barlow et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 34 (2016) 126–132
vey was widespread, and conservation practitioners provided the vast majority of responses. Any geographic or institutional bias in responses is likely due to the author contact list, which was developed through work in mainly South Asian countries. Expansion of the current contact list to include more donors, countries, and organisations not yet represented would improve the inference of future surveys. The relatively lower proportion of high accountability roles was expected considering the proportionally lower number of those roles in a given organisation. It might be expected that there would be a larger proportion of people with low accountability available to respond, but this group was the least represented. This could be a result of low numbers of this group represented in the author contact list, the survey reach being limited to those people who had internet access and could respond in English, or the survey may not have appealed to lower accountability roles who may not be as responsible for incorporating project management into their day-to-day work and that of their teams. There are a number of additional ways in which future surveys could be improved. For example, the wording of some of the survey questions (e.g. how well do you agree with the following statement “Well managed conservation projects are essential for achieving measurable conservation impact”) could have been improved to gain more insight and avoid unintentionally encouraging a high degree of affirmation. Future surveys that explicitly investigate and account for the possible effects of non-response and sampling error would also have a strengthened inference (Groves, 2004). This survey also focused on knowledge-based project management skills (e.g. monitoring and evaluation), so further research would be needed to evaluate the values, application, and benefit of the softer, people management skills that are also essential for effective project management (PMI Standards Committee, 2002). Overall, considering the representation of regions, countries, organisations and accountability levels of respondents, and the unequivocal nature of the responses, we think the survey results provide a reasonable initial inference for the conservation sector as a whole, but that results should not be considered definitive due to possible coverage error (Groves, 2004). 4.2. Need for project management skills in conservation This need for project management skills in conservation, highlighted by the respondents in this survey, is in line with earlier suggestions by Knight et al. (2008) who recommended “training students in skills for ‘doing conservation’. The results of the current study, however, suggest that it is important to expand the need for such training for other groups such as practitioners and donors. In addition, it seems reasonable to conclude that a majority if conservationists, often with relatively high and medium levels of accountability, continuing to work at below their desired level of performance in project management will greatly reduce the conservation impact their respective organisations are able to achieve. 4.3. Supply and demand The survey indicated an overwhelming demand for training in project management skills, but only a small minority of respondents had any kind of certification in this discipline. Certification is a way of ensuring standardisation in skill levels and knowledge that may otherwise not be available, because informal, on-the-job training provided by colleagues will be inherently variable in quality, effectiveness, and applicability. The lack of certification may, in part, be a reflection of the small number of organisations identified in the survey that specialise in providing training in project management.
131
The insufficient supply of certified project management training for the conservation sector, makes it difficult to assess the quality of training efforts or individual skill levels, and reduces the opportunities for conservationists to acquire standardised, transferable skills that can enhance their conservation efforts and support their career development. The general lack of project management skills development may also be related to the current content of conservation courses in universities (Blickley et al., 2013, Muir & Schwartz, 2009), and a reflection of how the project management skill set is viewed by conservationists. Project management is a key skill highlighted in conservation-related job adverts, but it seems that in some cases conservation professionals may consider project management to be something that is gained from the experience of carrying out research (Blickley et al., 2013), or can learnt on the job (Muir & Schwartz, 2009), rather than a discipline in its own right, requiring certification to indicate competence. In other cases, project management may not even be highlighted by conservation leaders as a key, desirable skill (Langholz & Abeles, 2014). 4.4. Barriers to training in project management There was respondent perception that a lack of institutional support is a barrier to training in some cases. The lack of funds may also be an indication that institutions and individuals find it difficult to raise funds to support training of their staff, and/or that donors do not provide sufficient funds to support project management training for practitioners. Even if there were funds, time, and institutional support, however, then conservationists may still not have the opportunities available to develop their project management skills due to a lack of available training courses. 4.5. Variation in perception The geographical variance in the perceived values of project management skill areas suggests that Asian conservationists are currently more open to receive training and motivated to apply project management approaches to the conservation project they are working on. It is not clear why European conservationists value the project management skill sets the least, but it may be a simple reflection of their familiarity and competency in these areas, as this group also were found to be less likely to rate themselves as highly skilled. Perhaps unsurprisingly, conservationists with high or medium levels of accountability thought themselves more skilled than those of lower accountability, as these high and medium groups will probably have accumulated more experience in managing projects during their career. The fact that conservationists with a medium level of accountability were less likely than those with lower levels of accountability to strongly agree that there is a lack of project management training opportunities in the conservation sector that is reducing the chances of achieving successful conservation, may indicate that those with low accountability roles more acutely feel the brunt of inefficiencies in how they are managed (by the medium accountability roles). 4.6. Implications This survey highlighted a perceived link between project management skills and impact in the conservation sector, and also showed the need for, and lack of, project management training. The current low level supply of certified project management training for the conservation sector may, therefore, be a contributing factor that explains how 90% of funds are supporting projects that have no means to verify the effectiveness of their efforts (O’Neill, 2007).
132
A. Barlow et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 34 (2016) 126–132
To help improve conservation impact we recommend (a) the strengthening of project management guidelines currently available for the conservation sector, and (b) the provision of improved, certified, affordable, online and class-based training courses in project management. Such training courses could be provided by learning institutions, conservation organisations, or consultants. Alternatively, the gap in this skill set could be filed by conservation organisations hiring trained project managers from the business sector to run their projects, and use the classically trained conservationists as technical experts to provide information and advice as needed. We believe that improved project management skills will then enable conservation organisations to better link activities to results, implement activities more efficiently (through better control of time, budget, and quality), monitor outcomes, and adapt to changing conditions. The increased effectiveness of an organisation’s project management approach will help increase the likelihood of achieving desired results within a set timeframe and budget. Conservation organisations applying better project management approaches may then achieve more impact and utilise donor funds to greater effect. Likewise, on an individual level, improved project management skills may increase the likelihood of gaining employment or greater levels of responsibility in the conservation sector. However, it is important to note that these potential benefits of improved project management skills in the conservation sector are either derived from peoples’ perceptions or comparisons to different sectors. Further research is, therefore, needed to investigate the effect of project management skills on conservation success. Acknowledgements We are very grateful to all the conservationists who spent their time completing the survey and providing us with their valuable insights. Earlier drafts of the survey were improved thanks to the review and suggestions of Pete Cutter (Spatial Informatics Group), Jon Slaght (Wildlife Conservation Society), Cath Lawson (World Wide Fund for Nature), and two anonymous reviewers. Funding for this research was provided by an anonymous, private donor. References Al Neimat, T. (2005). Why IT projects fail. In The project perfect white paper collection. pp. 8. Blickley, J. L., Deiner, K., Garbach, K., Lacher, I., Meek, M. H., Porensky, L. M., et al. (2013). Graduate student’s guide to necessary skills for non-academic conservation careers. Conservation Biology, 27, 24–34. CMP. (2013). The open standards for the practice of conservation v3.0. Christensen, R. H. B., & Brockhoff, P. B. (2013). Analysis of sensory ratings data with cumulative link models: Analyse des observations des évaluations sensorielles avec cumulative link models. Journal De La Société Franc¸aise De Statistique, 154, 58–79. Christensen, R. (2014). Package ordinal regression models for ordinal data.. http:// www.cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ordinal/index.html (Accessed 16.09.15) Chua, A., & Lam, W. (2005). Why KM projects fail: A multi-case analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9, 6–17. Crawford, L., Pollack, J., & England, D. (2006). Uncovering the trends in project management: Journal emphases over the last 10 years. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 175–184. Dillman, D. A., & Bowker, D. K. (2001). The web questionnaire challenge to survey methodologists. Online Social Sciences, 53–71.
Grantham, H. S., Bode, M., McDonald-Madden, E., Game, E. T., Knight, A. T., & Possingham, H. P. (2009). Effective conservation planning requires learning and adaptation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8, 431–437. Groves, R. M. (2004). . Survey errors and survey costs (vol. 536) John Wiley and Sons. Grumbine, R. E. (1994). What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology, 8, 27–38. Holling, C. S., & Meffe, G. K. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology, 10, 328–337. Holling, C. S. (Ed.). (1978). Adaptive environmental assessment and management. New York: Wiley. Humphrey, W. S. (2005). Why big software projects fail: The 12 key questions. ICC/ESOMAR. (2007). International code on market and social research. IUCN. (2004). Core concepts in planning, monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) of Projects in IUCN. IUCN report. Knight, A. T., Cowling, R. M., & Campbell, B. M. (2006). An operational model for implementing conservation action. Conservation Biology, 20, 408–419. Knight, A. T., Cowling, R. M., Rouget, M., Balmford, A., Lombard, A. T., & Campbell, B. M. (2008). Knowing but not doing: Selecting priority conservation areas and the research–implementation gap. Conservation Biology, 22, 610–617. Langholz, J. A., & Abeles, A. (2014). Rethinking postgraduate education for marine conservation. Marine Policy, 43, 372–375. Likert, R. (1931). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22, 1–55. Margoluis, R., Stem, C., Brown, M., Johnson, A., Placci, G., Salafsky, N., et al. (2013). Results chains: A tool for conservation action design, management and evaluation. Ecology and Society, 18, 22. McCarthy, M. A., & Possingham, H. P. (2007). Active adaptive management for conservation. Conservation Biology, 21, 956–963. McDonald-Madden, E., Probert, W. J. M., Hauser, C. E., Runge, M. C., Possingham, H. P., Jones, M. E., et al. (2010). Active adaptive conservation of threatened species in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications, 20, 1476–1489. Milosevic, D., & Patanakul, P. (2005). Standardized project management may increase development projects success. International Journal of Project Management, 23, 181–192. Muir, M. J., & Schwartz, M. W. (2009). Academic research training for a non-academic workplace: A case study of graduate student alumni who work in conservation. Conservation Biology, 23, 1357–1368. O’Neill, L. (2007). Auditing the conservation process; lessons learned, 2003–2007. CMP Report. PMI Standards Committee. (2002). Project manager competency development (PMCD) framework. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, Chicago: Project Management Institute (PMI). Parma, A. M. (1998). What can adaptive management do for our fish, forests, food, and biodiversity? Integrative Biology: Issues, News and Reviews, 1, 16–26. Patanakul, P., Lewwongcharoen, B., & Milosevic, D. (2010). An empirical study on the use of project management tools and techniques across project life-cycle and their impact on project success. Journal of General Management, 35, 41–65. R Development Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing (Accessed Feb 2013). http://www.r-project.org/ Redford, et al. (2015). Summative evaluation of conservation measures partnership and Conservation Coaches Network to strengthen results-based management in conservation. Salafsky, N., Margoluis, R., Redford, K. H., & Robinson, J. G. (2001). Improving the practice of conservation: A conceptual framework and research addenda for conservation science. Conservation Biology, 16, 1469–1479. Sarkar, S., Pressey, R. L., Faith, D. P., Margules, C. R., Fuller, T., Stoms, D. M., et al. (2006). Biodiversity conservation planning tools: Present status and challenges for the future. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31, 123–159. Schindler, S., Curado, N., Nikolov, S., Kret, E., Carcamo, B., Porazidas, K., et al. (2011). From research to implementation: Nature conservation in the Eastern Rhodopes mountains (Greece and Bulgaria), European Green Belt. Journal for Nature Conservation, 19, 193–201. Stem, C., Margoluis, R., Salafsky, S., & Brown, M. (2005). Conservation Biology, 19, 295–309. TNC. (2007). Conservation action planning handbook. TNC report. Teller, J., Unger, B. N., Kock, A., & Gemünden, H. G. (2012). Formalization of project portfolio management: The moderating role of project portfolio complexity. International Journal of Project Management, 30, 596–607. WWF. (2012). WWF Standards of conservation project and programme management (PPMS). WWF report. Wilhere, G. F. (2002). Adaptive management in habitat conservation plans. Conservation Biology, 16, 20–29.