Targeting the transitions: applying stage-gate^® thinking in strategic environmental assessment

Abstract

Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) practitioners have a tendency to emphasize assessment phases over the linkages between the phases. Explicitly addressing the transitions between stages could add rigour to SEA processes and make them more structurally robust. There is a considerable body of research on project management practices used by corporations during new product development (NPD). The stage-gate^® model is presented as an example of a successful and innovative NPD approach that is frequently used by various industries, and which addresses the links between assessment phases. Stage-gate theory treats connections between project stages as gates which must be passed. The philosophy behind the stage-gate model is explored as a macro-process that could support current practices in SEA and other types of impact assessment. The stages and gates designed for a proposed Nova Scotia SEA framework are presented to show how stage-gate thinking can be adapted for use in SEA processes. The paper concludes that SEA processes could become more efficient and effective by integrating a philosophy of gated assessments.

Keywords::

• SEA
• stage-gate^®
• methodological guidance
• framework

1. Introduction

In most flowcharts, there are arrows that connect the boxes to each other. These box-and-arrow diagrams usually demonstrate the route through a process. Many graphical representations of environmental assessment (EA) processes rely on arrows to connect stages or elements in the process. Because practitioners tend to focus on the activities represented by the boxes, the activities required to transition from one stage of assessment to another are often overlooked. Currently, there is a lack of practical guidance for strategic environmental assessment (SEA) which codifies the steps taken by practitioners as they exit one stage and enter another (IAIA 2002; Fischer 2006; Noble et al. 2012; Partidario 2012). This paper looks at the role of these transition points and discusses ways to increase the rigour and robustness of EA processes by incorporating management techniques used in product development processes. Our goal is not to recreate guidance related to assessment stages, but to improve the transitions between current SEA activities.

There is little discussion in the SEA literature on how a development proposal enters or exits the conveyor belt that carries it from stage to stage (Bina et al. 2011; Fischer & Onyango 2012; Noble et al. 2012; Partidario 2012; Tetlow & Hanusch 2012). The box-and-arrow diagram is occasionally discussed in general terms, e.g. ‘boxes of course represent concepts, constructs or variables, and arrows represent the relationships among them’ (Thomas et al. 2011, p. 1073). However, we contend that there has been insufficient attention paid to formalizing these relationships and developing sorely needed practical guidance for practitioners involved in shepherding assessment processes between boxes (Noble et al. 2012). We contend that EA practitioners can improve the robustness and rigour of their assessments by better appreciating the importance of the arrows that lie within their procedural flowcharts. Rather than blindly moving proposals through the process, these arrows should be thought of as a chance to critically reflect on the proposals, assessment process and the participant discourses (Runhaar 2009; Runhaar et al. 2010). Clearly there are activities which occur during these transitions and they are managed by practitioners; however, we contend that they are currently overly opaque and infrequently addressed in most SEA guidance literature.

Recent research on SEA practice has suggested the need to make SEA more strategic, clarify expectations and increase the degree to which processes exert influence (Tetlow & Hanusch 2012). We contend that having transparent transitions between stages will help address the above concerns and support better evaluations of learning outcomes, governance outcomes, development outcomes, as well as attitudinal and value changes (Cashmore et al. 2008); all of which allow for a more fulsome evaluation of SEA effectiveness. Reviews of SEA effectiveness have led to research results which suggest that SEA, as currently practiced, may not sufficiently influence decision-making or policy, plan, or program (PPP) contents (Retief 2007; Therivel et al. 2009), transparently integrate decisions made around selecting alternatives (Morrison-Saunders et al. 2014) or appropriate guide practitioners and decision-makers unfamiliar with SEA (Noble et al. 2012). While Tetlow and Hanusch (2012) suggest in their assessment of the state of the art in SEA practice that these mixed results of effectiveness reviews partly stem from the difficulty in reviewing final outcomes, our feeling is that suboptimal outcomes result from prior process decisions which are not transparent or may not engage appropriate participants. This is in line with suggestions that SEA guidance should be less passive and provide practical instructions for making decisions (Noble et al. 2012).

The idea of incorporating stage-gate® (a registered trademark of Stage-Gate Inc.) thinking in SEA practice occurred to us while we were investigating the structure of a robust framework for SEA in Nova Scotia. Like many jurisdictions, Nova Scotia has legislated that long-term sustainability must be considered in public-sector decision-making (Government of Nova Scotia 2007, 2012, 2013). However, the provincial government has not described the process of defining and evaluating sustainability in a tangible way. There are requirements for project-level EA but not for SEA (Government of Nova Scotia 2013), though some SEAs have been conducted on an ad hoc basis (CEF Consultants Ltd 2005; Jacques Whitford Ltd 2008; White & Noble 2013a). We felt that Nova Scotia would benefit from a consistent SEA framework to evaluate the environmental effects of the province's strategic decisions and start defining sustainable prosperity. Ideally this framework, and the insights which resulted from its creation, could also be used by other jurisdictions with a similar desire to define and effectively choose among trajectories of sustainability.

Stage-gate thinking is quite different from other attempts to integrate decision windows into SEA processes, notably in the analytical strategic environmental assessment (ANSEA) model (Nilsson & Dalkmann 2001; Dalkmann et al. 2004). We concur that SEA practitioners should strive to make processes more comprehensive, timely, transparent, participatory and consistent; however, we feel that ANSEA has several shortcomings. Primarily, the ANSEA model does not incorporate the concept of decision windows between SEA stages, rather it treats these decision points as stages in a simplified SEA process (Dalkmann et al. 2004). Thus there are still issues describing how proposals move between assessment phases. As this paper demonstrates, this is quite different from stage-gate thinking (Cooper 2008). In our model, decision-gates lie between common assessment stages and thus provide a mechanism to manage the transitions points between common assessment activities while maintaining the flexibility, robustness and effectiveness of existing processes. Our contention is that additional transparency is required in the transitions, not the stages themselves. By actively managing these transitions and making them more transparent, we contend that existing SEA frameworks can be made more timely and better integrate stakeholders in the assessment process. Thus while ANSEA and stage-gate thinking have similar theoretical intentions, they are operationalized very differently in the assessment process.

2. Dissecting the box-and-arrow diagram

The box-and-arrow diagram is often used when discussing stages or steps in any kind of process, and thus they are often used in strategic planning, project management and EA (Koberg & Bagnall 1974; Mintzberg 1994; Cooper 2008; Thomas et al. 2011; Partidario 2012). Predominantly the focus is on the boxes, as they are meant to contain the main activities required to complete the process. Process developers assemble flowcharts with different activities and order the boxes differently, all with an eye to define and describe effective and efficient ways to meet process objectives.

Most process diagrams depict the arrows as conveyors that effortlessly transport those involved, along with their project proposals, from one stage to another. However, for many process managers in new product development (NPD), the arrows are truly transition points in the process where they pause and critically reflect on the assessment. We decided that by better structuring these transitions, we could help provide structure and rigour to SEA processes and solidify the underlying framework governing assessment processes (Fischer 2003; Runhaar 2009; Noble et al. 2012; Partidario 2012; White & Noble 2013b).

Researchers in NPD who have investigated the linkages between project stages have concluded that they are natural decision points (Cooper et al. 2002; Cooper & Edgett 2003). One model used commonly in product development is called the stage-gate process (Kagioglou et al. 2000; Karlstrom & Runeson 2005; Walkup & Ligon 2006; Cooper 2011). In this theory of project management, the arrows so common in project management flowcharts are replaced with gates which actively manage the transition points between procedural steps. Because stage-gate thinking is a macro-level management model that overlays the micro-process of each individual assessment (Cooper 2008), it can provide new insights for conducting SEAs as well as other types of development projects (Kagioglou et al. 2000; Karlstrom & Runeson 2005; Walkup & Ligon 2006).

3. The stage-gate process

The stage-gate process was advanced by Robert Cooper and Scott Edgett, who have since trademarked a specific product-development model. They have actively engaged the product-development community and their methods have become widely used among businesses across the world since first introduced in 1986 (Cooper 2011). In addition to the product-development process, Cooper and Edgett have also promoted the concepts and ideas behind the stage-gate philosophy in books, presentations and through their organization The Product Development Institute. The work done by Cooper and Edgett built on ideas underpinning the phase-gate processes that were used by NASA in the 1960s (Cooper 1994), but stage-gate thinking has since evolved with application by hundreds of companies developing thousands of new products (Cooper et al. 2002; Cooper 2011).

The stage-gate model builds on the idea that there are often a series of consistent procedural elements to accomplish when working to assess alternatives and complete a project, whether that project is conducting a research study, building a home or developing a new product. These linked elements, the boxes in box-and-arrow diagrams, are the stages in the stage-gate process. This is analogous to the concept of life-stages that organisms go through: birth, maturation, reproduction, senescence and death. The stages of building a home are different from the stages of life; there are no life-stages which require a foundation, floor, walls or roof. However, in both cases the stages are linked like a chain that connects the beginning to the end in a series of discreet and well-defined steps. NASA recognized this thinking when it used a first-generation phase-review process in the 1960s to evaluate how to take astronauts to the moon and bring them safely back to Earth (Cooper 1994).

Stage-gate thinking can be applied to manage construction projects just as easily as product development (Kagioglou et al. 2000). Steps in the project process get linked by gates which provide opportunities to reflect on and evaluate the output of the previous stage before advancing. In the example of building a home, the foundation stage could be considered complete when the contractor and building inspector check the work. The inspection becomes the gate and the contractor and inspector are the gatekeepers. The gate can be viewed as the success requirement to complete a stage and the gatekeepers verify that requirements have been met (Cooper 2008). Though all homes require a foundation, whether they are checked, how extensively and by whom differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, some inspection gates may require exhaustive testing before proceeding to the next stage of construction, while others may be satisfied with only a cursory inspection or a self-assessment by the building team. The inspection can be legislated or conducted as part of good practice, but either way there is a gate to pass which marks the completion of the foundation stage. Realizing that all projects transition between stages, and taking advantage of these natural opportunities to assess the output of the previous stage, is at the heart of stage-gate thinking.

The typical stage-gate process follows a standard structure that can be easily adapted by different organizations and industries (Kagioglou et al. 2000; Karlstrom & Runeson 2005; Walkup & Ligon 2006; Cooper 2008). The stage-gate product development process consists of five key stages: scoping, build business case, development, testing and validation, and launch. These stages are preceded by a discovery stage and followed by a post-launch review.

Though the language is different, these stages are strikingly similar to the stages in a typical SEA process. Before the stage-gate process recommends the launch of a proposal, issues to be considered are scoped into the assessment, rigorous research is conducted to holistically describe the project details and justifications, ideas are tested and stakeholder insight is sought. There is even a follow-up component, the post-launch review, similar to what is needed to add rigour in SEA processes (Morrison-Saunders & Arts 2004; Partidario 2012).

In Figure 1 we see a different graphical metaphor to represent the stage-gate process than what is usually used in SEA flowcharts. Markedly, in most SEA diagrams, the stages are represented as square shapes and the movement between elements is indicated by connecting lines or arrows. In the stage-gate flowchart, we see that the background image and stages themselves convey a sense of movement without connecting lines. Indeed, the connecting gates are shown as diamonds that allude to the different directions a proposal can take following the gatekeeper's decision. Figure 1 also clearly shows how the stage-gate process can be scaled up or down as appropriate by modifying the gates while still examining proposals using a similar stage structure. This is somewhat similar to the three levels of rigour used in Canadian Environmental Impact Assessment practices (Noble 2006). However, rather than weakening the stage activities when accelerating processes, the stage-gate process allows for some stages to operate in parallel and limits the decision-gates to keep the assessment as robust and timely as possible.

Figure 1 The stage-gate NPD new product development process (Cooper 2008).

4. Generic stage structure

Regardless of the nature of each individual stage, some common features and activities are shared by all stages in the Cooper and Edgett model (2003). All stages have a research and learning component that provides information to the project team. The team then analyses the results of the activities and the information gathered in order to prepare a stage summary that would guide decision-makers and gatekeepers who must evaluate the results in the gate meeting (Cooper 2011). The deliverables from each stage should provide the information required to make a good decision at the next gate.

This discussion will not delve deeply into the work conducted in assessment stages, as we contend that this is already the focus of considerable research within the SEA community. There are numerous guidance documents which support SEA practice during procedural stages (IAIA 2002; Fischer 2006; Croal et al. 2010; Noble et al. 2012; Partidario 2012). Stage-gate thinking would only slightly modify standard stage practices, most notably by requiring reports and summaries of stage activities for analysis in the inter-stage gates.

The real value of stage-gate thinking for SEA practitioners is to make their processes more transparent and effective by adding decision gates between appropriate stages. This reduces bureaucratic intrusion in assessment processes, by formalizing when decisions within the SEA are made. We feel that this type of macro level management process could help answer the question of ‘how to make “good” methodological choices in SEA’ (Noble et al. 2012, p. 145). Specifically, this is a way of governing SEA in a consistent fashion without a one-size-fits-all framework. Stage-gate thinking could assist in structuring the linkages between SEA stages, without changing the nature of the stages they connect and thus make assessment processes more rigorous and robust. Stage-gate thinking may also assist in providing decision-makers with context earlier in the assessment process, aiding their ability to make better decisions when the assessments final results are reported.

5. Generic gate structure

Though the substance of the work is completed in the stages, it is the way gates link project stages that makes the stage-gate model so compelling. Gates can be more or less rigorous to fit project circumstances appropriately. However, all gates share some common characteristics. Principally, gates provide an opportunity to evaluate the previous stage's deliverables in a fulsome manner and direct how those deliverables become inputs to other stages.

There is considerable guidance which supports the decision-making processes that occur between stages (Kagioglou et al. 2000; Cooper et al. 2002; Cooper & Edgett 2003; Karlstrom & Runeson 2005; Cooper 2011). This guidance has shown that rigorous gating can make assessments more efficient, timely, transparent and cost-effective (Cooper & Edgett 2003; Cooper 2008). Gate meetings are the actual decision points in the stage-gate process. At these meetings, the project team that has been overseeing the stage activities presents the stage results to the gatekeepers who are responsible for advancing or recycling the proposal under consideration.

Gatekeepers can be senior decision-makers or other stake-holders, which in business includes key suppliers and customers. In an SEA, the gatekeepers could be cabinet members, senior bureaucrats, key stakeholder representatives and process managers. Stage-gate thinking has provided significant guidance for gatekeepers to assist them in running better gate meetings (Cooper 2008, 2011). Gatekeepers often develop scoring criteria to remove personal biases and objectively assess each proposal. Types of criteria are discussed in stage-gate theory. The first are must-meet criteria which are judged on a pass/fail basis (Cooper 2008). If any proposal fails to meet one of these essential criteria, it cannot pass and go on to the next stage. The second type of scoring rates should-meet criteria (Cooper 2008). This second type of evaluation rates each proposal on a numerical scale which is then used to assign priority and preferences among competing proposals. Other research has shown that using criteria-based algorithms is an effective method for ensuring accuracy while reducing personal biases during decision-making, significantly when there are high degrees of unpredictability and uncertainty (Tversky & Kahneman 1981; Kahneman 2011).

The gate-meeting converts the outputs from the preceding stage into the inputs that flow into the next appropriate stage. Gate-meetings do not necessarily result in a decision to advance a proposal; this is, after all, a decision point in the process. Rather, there are four distinct options, alluded to by the diamond graphic in Figure 1, which a proposal can take after encountering a gate (Cooper 2008). The four classic options gatekeepers have when assessing progress in a process are GO, advance to the next stage; HOLD, at the current stage; RECYCLE, to a previous stage; or KILL, remove from the process all together. These options allow the linear processes described in box-and-arrow diagrams to behave in a more iterative and complex manner during actual practice. The concept of a decision gate allows for processes to be streamlined and resources to be used as efficiently as possible (Cooper & Edgett 2003), while anticipating the need to deviate from the standard path as circumstances arise. Gates are a structural element which supports the incorporation of emergent strategies (Mintzberg 1994) into strategic planning, thus allowing for realized strategies to be more transparently determined and monitored.

6. Applying stage-gate thinking to SEA processes

SEA is fundamentally different from many other forms of EA. In most project-level assessments, there is only one main proposal which focuses EIA investigations to direct impacts and mitigation options; this often leads to a fairly direct line of investigation. An assessment of strategy is quite different. In an SEA there is often a wide variety of alternatives that must be considered and researched to best inform the final decision-makers who will choose among them. In order to keep SEAs from becoming bloated by excessive effort and expenditure, there is a need to constantly re-focus the assessment on desirable scenarios and appropriate strategies. Similar to product development processes that act more like a funnel than a tunnel (Cooper 2011), SEA processes strive to home in on the best policy options and strategic alternatives. Throughout the SEA process, evaluations should continuously be made to ensure that resources are being focused on the most appropriate options and strategies under consideration.

Without changing the substance of the assessment process, incorporating robust gating practices can strengthen SEA processes in a number of ways. Stage-gate thinking can add transparency to assessments, provide clear milestones and timelines, reduce non-critical research and reporting, make processes more cost-effective and deliver better results. As we investigated the structure of an SEA framework for Nova Scotia, we considered these advantages and decided to develop and propose a gated assessment framework.

7. Nova Scotia SEA framework

In the Nova Scotia context, we felt that practical SEA guidance was required for decision-makers and stakeholders who were inexperienced with using this approach to assessment. The tool also had to be flexible and adaptable in a wide spectrum of potential applications. Though Nova Scotia has legislated requirements for EA at the project level, there is no such obligation to evaluate strategic actions or policy decisions. This realization highlighted that SEA had to demonstrate value over short and long time horizons in order to be more widely adopted in Nova Scotia. For the government to start conducting SEAs on a regular basis, there was a need to describe the benefits of SEA and show how such assessments could be effectively structured.

7.1 Nova Scotia SEA stages

Our framework describes eight distinct stages that would structure the standard SEA process. To make the framework more approachable, we proposed elements similar to the EA structure commonly used in Nova Scotia. To highlight that SEA is a learning tool, we converted research into scenarios as part of a futuring exercise that could advise decision-makers without preordaining a superior solution (Schwartz 1991). By occasionally involving ultimate decision-makers as gatekeepers, they become more active participants in the process and consequently gain a richer understanding of the issues before they are presented with a final report. The stages in our NS SEA framework are (1) triggering document, (2) options and alternatives, (3) scoping, (4) research, (5) scenario modelling, (6) stakeholder preferences, (7) final report and recommendations and (8) monitoring (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Proposed stage-gate SEA framework for Nova Scotia.

Stages one and two structure how proposals enter into the SEA process. The middle stages make up the core of the assessment process, which is completed when stakeholders have examined the options and decided which they prefer. The final stages describe how the assessment concludes and moves into a watchful hibernation phase. Though these stages may change over time, we decided that these were appropriate to start framing a common SEA process in Nova Scotia. As it is likely that most impact assessment practitioners are familiar with this type of staged process, we now turn attention to how we linked these stages with a series of decision gates.

7.2 Nova Scotia SEA gates

We instituted learning from stage-gate theory to create a series of gates that paralleled the eight stages in our framework. Each of our gates was designed with two distinct functions in mind. The first function is generally to render decisions in the style of the classic four-directional decision gate described above. The second function assists in transforming stage outputs into inputs for subsequent stages and facilitates the assessment process.

These gates are (1) screening and governance structure, (2) option clustering and stakeholder identification, (3) rank alternatives and research guidance, (4) research review and scenario guidance, (5) mid-assessment evaluation and scenario review, (6) preference integration and mapping, (7) final assessment evaluation and monitoring guidance and (8) monitoring review and SEA ramp-up. As the concept of gates is a new addition to our framework, we will now discuss how each gate operates and structures the assessment process.

The initial gate, screening and structuring, is a secondary check on whether an SEA need occur and sets some initial parameters for the SEA process. This gate pre-supposes that a policy has been identified as having likely and significant environmental effects and that such a finding has triggered an assessment process designed to inform decision-makers. Gate 1 assists in determining whether an SEA is the appropriate choice of evaluation approach, and the degree of rigour for the subsequent assessment process. If SEA is being applied to develop a policy, then the evaluation portion of gate 1 could be bypassed or used to ensure that the exercise is not better suited to another type of assessment. However, if moving forward in the SEA framework, the transitioning portion of gate 1 is still required to structure the process of developing the policy. This is when the core participant group is nominated; these individuals will be called on to be active participants and represent a wide variety of interested parties. This small group, ideally of three to seven members, is more of an advisory council than a steering committee. Once the preliminary core group is established, the gatekeepers would then determine the initial assessment structure. Structural issues to be determined could include, but are not limited to, the time frames, budgets, infrastructure, resources, degree of public involvement and/or personnel required to conduct an appropriately rigorous assessment. The final activity of this SEA phase is to prepare guidance for all interested parties who wish to contribute to the process.

The second gate, option clustering and stakeholder identification, takes the different possibilities uncovered in the alternatives stage and codifies them into a more rationalized package of strategic choices. The goal of the gate is not to decide which options are more relevant, which comes after scoping. Rather it is to streamline the number of options to assess further by aggregating them around common themes and strategic trajectories. These trajectories are each a description of a series of policy decisions that work in conjunction to bring about a desired outcome. One of the other benefits of conducting a search for alternatives early in the process is that it helps identify key stakeholders for later inclusion in the scoping and preference stages. This gate acts as the close of the initial structuring phase and leads into the principal research work of the assessment.

The third gate uses the output of the scoping process, the identified critical evaluation criteria, to rank and assess the options that were previously rationalized. These rankings are then used to determine and prioritize various indicators for further investigation during the research stage. Other indicators may emerge during the research or scenario modelling stages, but this gate is designed to focus initial investigations on high-priority areas and to increase the volume of productive research that is conducted or synthesized during the assessment period.

The fourth gate, research review and scenario guidance, synthesizes all of the research conducted to try to develop a coherent report that summarizes what was learned during the previous stages. A decision has to be made as to whether the research is sufficiently fulsome to populate such a coherent report and support the creation of useful future scenarios. Should the research be complete, then this gate helps prioritize which scenarios will provide a sufficiently wide suite of options to choose among.

The fifth gate provides an opportunity to evaluate the assessment at a critical point in the process. At the end of the modelling phase, the options provided by stakeholders have been researched and synthesized. As the SEA process goes public again in the next stage, this gate is a final check to make sure that options have been explored at sufficient resolution to provide stakeholders with a rich enough suite of scenarios to choose among. Once the scenarios have been selected in the first half of this gate, they must then be packaged and prepared to properly inform stakeholders about each hypothetical future. The goal of this gate is to provide a full suite of equitable scenarios and to reduce bias during stakeholder evaluations. This gate also supports reducing the number of scenarios to a manageable suite for interested parties to choose among.

The sixth gate marks the end of the SEA process's core research and evaluation exercises. At this point, the scenario options should be sufficiently balanced and integrated to allow for strategic preferences to emerge. These preferences can then be used to rank and recommend options and alternatives discovered earlier in the SEA. Ideally, this gate acts to verify that the SEA is sufficiently complete to provide decision-makers with a richer context and understanding of critical issues with which they can justify a final policy choice. Should the process determine that the SEA has provided sufficient resolution, this gate then helps to map these results to provide as fulsome an understanding of the options and rationales so that future strategic actions can be evaluated. By identifying short-, medium- and long-term policy preferences, this exercise reveals preferred strategic trajectories and provides context to support better decision-making.

The seventh gate acts to finalize the intensive assessment process. This is an opportunity to evaluate whether critical SEA objectives were met and to gain formal buy-in from the core participant group and final decision-makers who sponsored the assessment process. At this point, SEA participants can also reflect on the process and recommend suggestions for improving the assessment process, structure, methods or activities. The second phase of this gate provides guidance for the monitoring stage and determines which monitoring criteria will trigger another iteration of the SEA process. The gate marks the end of the intensive SEA process and serves to usher in the continuous monitoring phase.

The final gate in our SEA process acts as an ongoing check of conditions and indicators against the triggering criteria previously established. In the parlance of Cooper (2011), this gate acts as the post-launch review. The review component can also provide ongoing monitoring of changes in public opinion or environmental indicators against agreed-upon criteria. This gate could determine that SEA preferences need to be updated using previous scenarios (e.g. by recycling through stages 6 and 7) or that the entire process must begin from first assumptions. Should it be determined that the process must reiterate, this gate would structure the outputs of the previous process to support the creation of a triggering document to kick-start the next SEA.

Our goal in this section was to describe how SEA decision gates would operate; and provide some insight as to how these formal decision-points could improve the timeliness of results, reduce costs and increase the transparency of the SEA process. Rather than waiting until the conclusion of the process to gain a richer understanding of critical issues, the decision-makers who will be using the final results of the assessment process occasionally participate as gatekeepers. In this way, decision-makers are better informed on stage results as they occur, making information transfer more timely and relevant. Evaluating proposals as they move through the assessment process ensures that effort will be focused on appropriate options and alternatives, and reduces unnecessary assessment activities. The narrowing of options as the assessment continues means that expensive research and public engagement activities are focused on the best options and not wasted on investigating alternatives that are less likely to be effective. By making SEA more of a funnel than a tunnel, we hope that the process provides a consistent flow of information to engage interested parties and decision-makers while reducing unnecessary expenditure of time, effort and resources.

8. Concerns about adapting stage-gate thinking to EA processes

Though there are insights that EA practitioners can learn from stage-gate theory, we do not believe that the macro-process can be seamlessly adopted for use in EA. One immediate concern issue for EA practitioners regards the language used by Cooper and his collaborators. However, just renaming terms is insufficient to fully address the needs of SEA theorists who are interested in utilizing stage-gate thinking; over the longer term, new understanding has to be brought to bear so that appropriate roles and responsibilities can be clearly established. Eventually, guidance around setting and governing the gates between stages can be created specifically for impact assessment processes.

As an example of this type of challenge, consider our adaptation of stage-gate thinking to the SEA framework for Nova Scotia. The business development community has a tendency to use confrontational and/or aggressive language when describing activities and results. It is unusual to read terms such as killer-innovation and doom-loop in EA processes, but these kinds of terms are commonly found in business literature (Collins 2001). We frequently hear of business professionals reading Sun Tzu and Machiavelli to gain the upper hand in business dealings, and this has had a significant influence on business language and corporate culture. In SEA processes, the emphasis is often on conciliating opposing viewpoints and leveraging common interests to find consensus positions (IAIA 2002).

In addition to limiting inflammatory language, stage-gate thinking has to be adapted to the type of work done in impact assessment and project appraisal contexts. This was part of our rationale for creating a gate which both makes decisions and facilitates assessment activities. Ultimately the end goal of a stage-gate process in the SEA context is not launching successful new products, but instead to objectively provide information to decision-makers about which policy and project proposals are appropriate for implementation; which is why they occasionally participate as gatekeepers. Furthermore, additional research is required to determine how to best establish and govern a gated EA process. Who are the ideal gatekeepers in this context: is this a role for stakeholders, government or both? Who is responsible for setting the gate criteria: the decision-makers who are requesting the assessment, or the project team which has potentially greater understanding of the process and proposals? When modifying the concept of gates to fit EA contexts, are four potential decisions enough or do we need additional options, i.e. a shunt which directs proposals into other assessment processes? These questions indicate the need to determine best practices and create additional guidance to assist in bringing stage-gate thinking into the world of impact assessment. This paper serves as a call to begin considering ideas from stage-gate thinking, but does not claim to have all the answers on how best to integrate these new concepts.

Perhaps most seriously, by adding decision gates between stages there is likely to be a perception that this process adds additional layers of unnecessary bureaucracy or increases interference within SEA processes. These gates, if improperly managed, could make assessments more costly, less timely, increase interference by decision-makers or other participants and generally work against any suggested notion of increased effectiveness or efficiency. These concerns have been consistently raised within firms that are contemplating adoption of stage-gate processes in product development processes. For the most part, these concerns have proved to be less of an issue in practice than expected by many who are unfamiliar with stage-gate thinking. This is largely due to a wealth of research and learned experience around how to properly manage a stage-gate process (Cooper et al. 2002; Cooper 2008). Stage-gate processes emphasize functionality and efficiency by allowing processes to proceed in parallel rather than sequentially. It is important to note that this is a process originally designed for businesses, and needs to work effectively in short-time frames and use minimal resources. Stage-gate processes are not designed to allow decision-makers to micro-manage or interfere with assessments, rather it allows process managers to offset unexpected bureaucratic intrusion because the decision gates are established in advance. These gate meetings are designed to be quick and keep the assessment focused on completing core stage activities. This gives decision-makers, who are only involved in a limited number of gate-keeping roles, concentrated bursts of information which provide nuance and context to support their reading of the final report. Stage-gate thinking reduces rather than increases demands for additional meetings, to incorporate with other committees, or include activities that are not germane to the assessment process. Finally it is important to note that stage-gate thinking is not intended to replace existing project management practices, but rather to act as a macro-process which focuses resources on the assessment stages by cleanly facilitating the transitions between them (Cooper 2008).

9. Conclusions

The stage-gate approach defines clear stages and decision points that occur when turning a fuzzy idea into a successful new product. However, the philosophy behind the process is highly adaptable to different situations and jurisdictions when viewed as a macro-level assessment model. It is not a one-size-fits-all process; rather, it is a structuring technique that assists in managing all manner and scale of assessments, projects or processes. By adjusting the success requirements on a case-by-case basis, the gates flex and adapt to changing needs and situations.

SEA can be designed to guide decision-makers and stakeholders who are inexperienced with the process. The structure also has to stay flexible and adapt to a wide spectrum of potential applications in order to see more widespread adoption of SEA. Stage-gate thinking can be used to guide the development of an easily understood structure that shows critical decision points, rather than arrows, as the transition points between assessment elements. A gated method of evaluation provides transparency and provides structural guidance by clearly describing the transitions between stages in the assessment process.

Stage-gate thinking has become dominant in product development circles due to its ability to assist decision-makers make unbiased assessments of new strategic initiatives, construction projects and product proposals. The tool has been proven to be an effective and efficient method of assisting organizations to better manage their risk and achieve greater rewards. This proven track record can reassure jurisdictions where there is concern that SEA processes could be an ineffective and inefficient use of resources. Though considerable work is needed to adapt stage-gate techniques to suit impact assessment, there are clearly opportunities for cross-learning.

This paper highlights an opportunity for EA theorists to re-evaluate how proposals enter and exit the stages in SEA processes. The arrows in SEA flowcharts should not be thought of as conveyor belts that blindly advance proposals, but rather as opportunities to pause and reflect. There are further opportunities to learn from product development research, which could improve the structural robustness and intellectual rigour of impact assessments. Actively involving decision-makers as gatekeepers could help integrate SEA into policy-planning processes and assist in making assessments more strategic. Incorporating formal decision gates could assist in transparently governing EA processes. Stage-gate thinking supports stakeholders and decision-makers as they critically reflect on development proposals and strategic actions, which aids the realization of prosperous trajectories of sustainability.