BoardFeet and CedarTree case study
I.
The case study Boardfeet and CedarTree brings to light a common problem experienced by large groups and organizations. Most of them do not see past their own policies and agendas when deciding on how to manage their resources. Government organizations are especially prone to this problem, as they are usually influenced by politics. It is surprising that anyone agreed to participate in the studies or discussions outlined in the case study, especially since the groups seem to have such different belief systems. I believe that the DNR had the right idea by making sure that any change to their mission statement on the part of the Lummi Tribe, was justified.
II.
1.The department of natural resources and the …show more content…
Although it is a state run entity, it still must answer to a federal overseer. According to the DNR’s website, the proceeds from their control of the state's natural resources provides over $200 million to public schools and state run institutions.
b.The DNR also has thirteen different divisions under its umbrella. Therefore, making large changes to the organization’s agenda or policies is a big undertaking and would require a lot of voices to be heard within the organization.
2. The Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest is run by the National Forest Service. This organization also falls under the USDA umbrella. According to their website fs.fed.us, the National Forest Service controls 154 national forest and 20 grasslands in 43 states and Puerto Rico. Any change of policy for any one of those sites would would have far reaching consequences to, not only that particular national forest, but to potentially all of them.
a.Changing a policy or adding another reason for control of an area would set a precedence for change to other …show more content…
Although the Lummi tribe attempted to solve the problem through several different avenues, the eventual focus groups and surveys that solved the problem were unconventional. The process may have taken longer than desired but, when dealing with big government organizations and in situations where money is involved, achieving a positive outcome at all is a big win. Eventually every conversation requires understanding, tolerance, and knowledge of each other’s point of view to be productive. If all of our problems could be addressed with the same persistence and understanding as the parties in this case showed, we might make some real progress in this
I.
The case study Boardfeet and CedarTree brings to light a common problem experienced by large groups and organizations. Most of them do not see past their own policies and agendas when deciding on how to manage their resources. Government organizations are especially prone to this problem, as they are usually influenced by politics. It is surprising that anyone agreed to participate in the studies or discussions outlined in the case study, especially since the groups seem to have such different belief systems. I believe that the DNR had the right idea by making sure that any change to their mission statement on the part of the Lummi Tribe, was justified.
II.
1.The department of natural resources and the …show more content…
Although it is a state run entity, it still must answer to a federal overseer. According to the DNR’s website, the proceeds from their control of the state's natural resources provides over $200 million to public schools and state run institutions.
b.The DNR also has thirteen different divisions under its umbrella. Therefore, making large changes to the organization’s agenda or policies is a big undertaking and would require a lot of voices to be heard within the organization.
2. The Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest is run by the National Forest Service. This organization also falls under the USDA umbrella. According to their website fs.fed.us, the National Forest Service controls 154 national forest and 20 grasslands in 43 states and Puerto Rico. Any change of policy for any one of those sites would would have far reaching consequences to, not only that particular national forest, but to potentially all of them.
a.Changing a policy or adding another reason for control of an area would set a precedence for change to other …show more content…
Although the Lummi tribe attempted to solve the problem through several different avenues, the eventual focus groups and surveys that solved the problem were unconventional. The process may have taken longer than desired but, when dealing with big government organizations and in situations where money is involved, achieving a positive outcome at all is a big win. Eventually every conversation requires understanding, tolerance, and knowledge of each other’s point of view to be productive. If all of our problems could be addressed with the same persistence and understanding as the parties in this case showed, we might make some real progress in this