studies that brought in a wider range of actors and constituencies only confirmed that 

 need. 



Prime lesson: simulation models can be a powerful tool in the overall process of 

 analysis, but only if the communication interfaces with the other parts of the process 

 are fostered. 



Methods of A nalysis are Not Enough 



We have conducted analyses that use only a limited array of quantitative methods, 

 either because information or understanding was sparse and qualitative or because 

 the problem was technically straightforward. But 1 cannot imagine an AEAM project 

 that was not structured around one or a sequence of workshops. For at its heart, the 

 problem of linking disciplinary knowledge, policy design and evaluation is a problem 

 of linking people — experts, managers, policy designers, decisionmakers, and con- 

 stituencies. 



The major barrier to AEAM is the scarcity of staff who have rigorous disciplinary 

 experience and analytic and modeling skills combined with experience in dealing 

 sensitively and constructively with people. But perhaps that combination of talents 

 lies latent in more people than traditions would indicate. Certainly that is our 

 experience in training individuals and teams from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

 Canada Department of the Environment, and within our university's graduate 

 school. I present a graduate course in modeling methods and workshop procedures, 

 for example, in which typically four or five individuals out of a class of 15 to 20 

 emerge with that combination of skills. They must start with a strong disciplinary 

 background and analytic skills. What is needed is a forum to tune, apply and expand 

 those skills and to match them with people skills. 



Those procedures were first developed in the GIRLS workshop," and refined, 

 expanded and modified in subsequent ones.''^ They dealt with ways to capitalize on 

 and, at times, generate rhythms of frustration and advance, how to organize and not 

 organize, how to deal with conflicts of principle, dogma and detail, when and how to 

 be interdisciplinary, when and how to concentrate on disciplinary knowledge, and 

 how to enrich and focus methods of communication and interaction. These 

 procedures have been used in Austria, Canada, South America, the United 

 Kingdom, and the United States. Although the basic features remain the same, 

 different cultures and nationalities require adaptation of the details. What remains 

 universal is the roles that appear during a workshop; the Peerless Leader who, with 

 astonishing commitment and perception, takes on leadership roles for the greater 

 good; the Utopian, who dreams the impossible dream and yet provides visions that 

 can be filtered to separate imaginative ideas from fantasy; the Blunt Scot, a rare 

 individual whose bluntness and sincerity of purpose transcends the mischievous 

 irresponsibility that most of us succumb to occasionally. And finally there is Snively 

 Whiplash, who clearly detests the whole effort, wishes to destroy it, and for some 

 reason stays on throughout. But he is invaluable, for he can provide a focus of 

 hostility that can crystallize a group spirit that can then be turned to more 

 constructive purpose. The greatest danger we have encountered is that Snively can 

 become a convert, and if sufficiently narrow can initiate subsequent activites that 

 subvert the essential need to be adaptive and flexible. 



The prime lesson: people, procedures, communication, and orchestration have to 

 be pursued as a creative, carefully designed activity that matches knowledge and 

 methods. 



Phase II. Small is Beautiful Versus Big is Necessary 



That experience set the stage for experiments in organizing the AEAM approach. 

 Carl Walters undertook a set of experiments designed to explore how small and 

 focused the organization could be and how rapidly the first stages could be 

 implemented. Mike Goldberg and I dared to organize an effort that was both 



82 



