Essential Tools for Conducting Effective Environmental Scans

Environmental scanning has emerged as a vital methodology across diverse sectors, from business strategy to public health initiatives. It provides a structured approach to understanding the external and internal landscapes, enabling organizations to make informed decisions, anticipate challenges, and seize opportunities. At its core, environmental scanning is about gathering, analyzing, and interpreting information. This process relies on a variety of Tools That Are Used To Conduct Environmental Scans, ranging from systematic research methods to stakeholder engagement techniques. These tools empower organizations to gain a comprehensive view of their operating environment, identify emerging trends, and strategically position themselves for future success. This article delves into the essential tools employed in environmental scans, illustrating their practical application through the lens of a public health project focused on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in Kentucky.

Understanding Environmental Scanning and Its Toolkit

Environmental scanning, at its most fundamental level, is a systematic process for collecting and analyzing information about an organization’s internal and external environments. Businesses initially adopted this approach to assess market dynamics, competitive landscapes, and potential disruptions. However, its utility has expanded significantly, finding relevance in public health, non-profit organizations, and governmental agencies. The primary goal of environmental scanning is to equip decision-makers with actionable intelligence, facilitating strategic planning and informed decision-making. It involves a proactive and ongoing effort to monitor various aspects of the environment, identify potential opportunities and threats, and adapt strategies accordingly.

The tools that are used to conduct environmental scans are diverse and adaptable, reflecting the multifaceted nature of the environments being assessed. These tools are not necessarily physical instruments but rather methodologies, techniques, and approaches designed to systematically gather and analyze relevant information. Effectively conducting an environmental scan requires a strategic combination of these tools, tailored to the specific objectives and context of the scan.

Key Tools and Techniques for Environmental Scans

A robust environmental scan leverages a range of tools to ensure a comprehensive and insightful analysis. These tools can be broadly categorized into research-oriented methods, stakeholder engagement techniques, and analytical frameworks.

1. Research and Information Gathering Tools

These tools focus on the systematic collection of data from various sources to build a knowledge base about the environment.

• Literature Reviews: A cornerstone of environmental scanning, literature reviews involve a systematic examination of published academic research, industry reports, government documents, and other relevant publications. This tool helps identify existing knowledge, research gaps, and established trends related to the scan’s focus. Both peer-reviewed articles and gray literature (reports, working papers, etc.) are valuable sources.

• Online Database Assessments: The digital age provides access to a wealth of information through online databases. Tools for database assessment include subscription-based services, publicly available repositories, and search engines. These resources can be used to gather statistical data, policy documents, news articles, and social media trends relevant to the environmental scan.

• Social Media Scanning: Social media platforms are rich sources of real-time information and public sentiment. Social media scanning tools monitor platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and online forums to identify emerging trends, public opinions, and discussions related to the scan’s topic. This can provide insights into public perception, attitudes, and potential areas of concern.

• Policy Reviews: Understanding the policy landscape is crucial for many environmental scans, particularly in public health and regulated industries. Policy reviews involve analyzing existing laws, regulations, guidelines, and policy documents at local, regional, national, and international levels. This tool helps identify policy drivers, regulatory constraints, and potential policy changes that could impact the organization or issue being examined.

2. Stakeholder Engagement Tools

Stakeholders are individuals, groups, or organizations that have an interest in or are affected by the issue being scanned. Engaging stakeholders is essential to gather diverse perspectives, validate findings, and ensure the relevance and impact of the environmental scan.

• Stakeholder Interviews: In-depth interviews with key stakeholders provide rich qualitative data and nuanced perspectives. Structured or semi-structured interview guides ensure consistency while allowing for flexibility to explore emerging themes. Identifying and interviewing a diverse range of stakeholders is critical to capturing a comprehensive view.

• Focus Groups: Focus groups bring together small groups of stakeholders to discuss specific topics in a facilitated setting. This tool is valuable for exploring shared perspectives, identifying common themes, and generating ideas through group interaction. Careful selection of participants and skilled facilitation are crucial for effective focus groups.

• Surveys: Surveys are useful for gathering structured data from a larger number of stakeholders. Both quantitative and qualitative data can be collected through surveys. Well-designed questionnaires, pilot testing, and appropriate sampling techniques are essential for ensuring the validity and reliability of survey data.

Figure: Project timeline visualization tool. A timeline chart outlining the stages of the environmental scan for Kentucky’s HPV project from July 2014 to December 2015, detailing key phases such as development, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination, with abbreviations for Kentucky (KY), National Cancer Institute (NCI), and Request for Proposal (RFP).

3. Analytical and Synthesis Tools

Once data is collected using the tools above, it needs to be analyzed and synthesized to generate meaningful insights.

• Qualitative Data Analysis Software: For environmental scans involving qualitative data from interviews, focus groups, or open-ended survey questions, software like NVivo or Atlas.ti can be invaluable. These tools assist in organizing, coding, and analyzing large volumes of text data to identify themes, patterns, and key insights.

• Quantitative Data Analysis Software: When quantitative data is collected, statistical software packages like SPSS or R are essential. These tools enable descriptive statistics, inferential statistics, and data visualization to identify trends, correlations, and significant findings.

• SWOT Analysis: SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis is a strategic planning tool that can be effectively used to synthesize findings from an environmental scan. By categorizing information into these four quadrants, organizations can gain a structured overview of their internal capabilities and external environment, facilitating strategic decision-making.

• Trend Analysis: This tool involves examining data over time to identify patterns, trends, and potential future trajectories. Trend analysis can be applied to various data types, including market data, social media trends, policy changes, and public health statistics, to anticipate future developments and inform strategic planning.

Case Study: Tools in Action – Kentucky’s HPV Vaccination Project

The environmental scan conducted for Kentucky’s HPV vaccination project provides a practical example of how these tools are applied in a public health context. The project, funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), aimed to understand the landscape of HPV vaccination efforts in Kentucky and identify opportunities to increase vaccination rates. The researchers employed a systematic 7-step process, which inherently utilized a variety of environmental scanning tools.

Step 1: Leadership and Capacity – Assembling the Right Expertise

The first step, establishing leadership and capacity, itself leverages a crucial “tool”: team expertise. The project leaders, drawing upon their experience in public health, cancer control, policy, and community engagement, provided the intellectual leadership and methodological expertise necessary for a successful environmental scan. This highlights that human capital and expertise are foundational tools for conducting effective scans.

Step 2: Defining the Focal Area and Purpose – Setting the Scope

Clearly defining the focal area and purpose acts as a focusing tool, ensuring that all subsequent data collection and analysis efforts are aligned with specific objectives. For the HPV project, the purpose was clearly articulated: to identify HPV vaccination-related activities, resources, and gaps in Kentucky, ultimately informing strategies to increase vaccination uptake. This focused purpose guided the selection of appropriate tools and data sources.

Step 3: Timeline and Incremental Goals – Project Management Tools

Creating and adhering to a timeline is a critical project management tool. The NCI-mandated 1-year timeline for the HPV project necessitated careful planning and prioritization of activities. Tools like Gantt charts or project management software could have been used to visually represent the timeline and track progress, ensuring efficient resource allocation and timely completion of each phase.

Step 4: Determining Information Needs – Brainstorming and Resource Mapping

Brainstorming sessions and resource mapping exercises served as key tools in identifying the scope of information to be collected. The project team initially brainstormed broad areas related to HPV vaccination in Kentucky, including data sources (cancer registries, immunization data), policy environment, media coverage, and stakeholder groups. This systematic approach ensured that no crucial information domains were overlooked.

Step 5: Stakeholder Engagement – Interviews and Partnerships

Stakeholder engagement was central to the Kentucky HPV project, and various tools were employed to facilitate this. Key informant interviews were conducted with a diverse range of stakeholders, including public health officials, healthcare providers, and community organizations. Communication strategies, such as introductory letters and clear articulation of project goals, were essential tools for engaging stakeholders and securing their participation. The project also leveraged existing partnerships, demonstrating that established networks are valuable tools for expanding reach and accessing information.

Step 6: Analyzing and Synthesizing Results – Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis

Analyzing and synthesizing the collected data involved both qualitative and quantitative analysis tools. Qualitative data analysis techniques were used to identify themes and patterns from stakeholder interviews and media content. Quantitative data analysis was applied to survey data and statistical reports. The synthesis process aimed to triangulate findings from different data sources, providing a robust and nuanced understanding of the HPV vaccination landscape in Kentucky.

Step 7: Disseminating Results – Reporting and Communication Tools

Disseminating findings effectively is crucial for translating environmental scan results into action. Report writing was a key tool for summarizing the scan’s methodology, findings, and recommendations. Presentation skills and the creation of visually appealing posters were used to communicate the results to diverse audiences, including the funding agency, stakeholders, and professional conferences. Choosing appropriate communication channels to reach target audiences is also a critical dissemination tool.

Conclusion: Optimizing Environmental Scans with the Right Tools

Environmental scanning is a powerful methodology for navigating complex and dynamic environments. Its effectiveness, however, hinges on the strategic selection and skillful application of appropriate tools that are used to conduct environmental scans. From research-based methods like literature reviews and database assessments to stakeholder engagement techniques such as interviews and focus groups, and analytical frameworks like SWOT analysis, a diverse toolkit is available. The Kentucky HPV vaccination project exemplifies how these tools can be integrated into a systematic process to generate actionable insights in a public health context.

By understanding the strengths and limitations of different environmental scanning tools and tailoring their application to specific objectives, organizations can enhance their ability to anticipate change, make informed decisions, and ultimately achieve their strategic goals. As the complexity of our world continues to increase, the ability to effectively conduct environmental scans, utilizing the right tools, will become even more critical for success across all sectors.

References

1. Morrison JL. Environmental scanning. In: Whitely MA, Porter JD, Fenske RH, editors. A primer for new institutional researchers. Tallahassee (FL): The Association for Institutional Research; 1992. p. 86–99.
2. Rowel R, Moore ND, Nowrojee S, Memiah P, Bronner Y. The utility of the environmental scan for public health practice: lessons from an urban program to increase cancer screening. J Natl Med Assoc 2005;97(4):527–34. PubMed
3. Thinking Futures. Holtham Hill (Australia): Doing an environmental scanning: an overview guide; 2012. http://www.sswm.info/sites/default/files/reference_attachments/CONWAY%202012%20Doing%20Environmental%20Scanning.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2016.
4. Society for Human Resource Management. Alexandria (VA): Society for Human Resource Management; 2016. https://www.shrm.org. Accessed April 2, 2016.
5. Liddy C, Mill K. An environmental scan of policies in support of chronic disease self-management in Canada. Chronic Dis Inj Can 2014;34(1):55–63. PubMed
6. Blasi PR, King D, Henrikson NB. HPV vaccine public awareness campaigns: an environmental scan. Health Promot Pract 2015;16(6):897–905. CrossRef PubMed
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Increasing quality colorectal cancer screening: an action guide for working with health systems. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2013.
8. Patel J, Salit IE, Berry MJ, de Pokomandy A, Nathan M, Fishman F, et al. Environmental scan of anal cancer screening practices: worldwide survey results. Cancer Med 2014;3(4):1052–61. CrossRef PubMed
9. Mazade NA, Glover RW, Hutchings GP. Environmental scan 2000: issues facing state mental health agencies. Adm Policy Ment Health 2000;27(4):167–81. CrossRef PubMed
10. Reitmanova S, Gustafson DL. Primary mental health care information and services for St. John’s visible minority immigrants: gaps and opportunities. Issues Ment Health Nurs 2009;30(10):615–23. CrossRef PubMed
11. Mazade NA, Glover RW. State mental health policy: critical priorities confronting state mental health agencies. Psychiatr Serv 2007;58(9):1148–50. CrossRef PubMed
12. Kalula SZ, Scott V, Dowd A, Brodrick K. Falls and fall prevention programmes in developing countries: environmental scan for the adaptation of the Canadian Falls prevention curriculum for developing countries. J Safety Res 2011;42(6):461–72. CrossRef PubMed
13. Sorensen AV, Bernard SL. Accelerating what works: using qualitative research methods in developing a change package for a learning collaborative. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2012;38(2):89–95. PubMed
14. Weidmer BA, Brach C, Hays RD. Development and evaluation of CAHPS survey items assessing how well healthcare providers address health literacy. Med Care 2012;50(9, Suppl 2):S3–11. CrossRef PubMed
15. Sibbald SL, McPherson C, Kothari A. Ontario primary care reform and quality improvement activities: an environmental scan. BMC Health Serv Res 2013;13(1):209. CrossRef PubMed
16. Anas R, Stiff J, Speller B, Foster N, Bell R, McLaughlin V, et al. Raising the bar: using program evaluation for quality improvement. Healthc Manage Forum 2013;26(4):191–5. CrossRef PubMed
17. Graham P, Evitts T, Thomas-MacLean R. Environmental scans: how useful are they for primary care research? Can Fam Physician 2008;54(7):1022–3. PubMed
18. National Association of County and City Health Officials. Developing a local health department strategic plan: a how-to guide. http://www.naccho.org/uploads/downloadable-resources/Programs/Public-Health-Infrastructure/StrategicPlanningGuideFinal.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2016.
19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC evaluation framework. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2016. http://www.cdc.gov/eval/framework/. Accessed June 5, 2015.
20. Public Health Foundation. The ABCs of plan-do-check-act (PDCA). Washington (DC): Public Health Foundation. http://www.phf.org/resourcestools/Pages/The_ABCs_of_PDCA.aspx. Accessed June 20, 2016.
21. National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences. Administrative supplements for NCI-designated cancer centers to support collaborations to enhance HPV vaccination in pediatric settings: a summary report. Silver Spring (MD): Nova Research Company; 2016.
22. National Cancer Institute. HPV vaccine uptake in cancer centers. Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute; 2015. http://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/hpvuptake/. Accessed April 2, 2016.
23. Kentucky Cancer Consortium. Lexington (KY): KCC Communications. http://www.kycancerc.org/. Access June 5, 2016.
24. Guion LA. A 10-step process for environmental scanning. J Ext 2010;48(4) http://www.joe.org/joe/2010august/iw2.php.
25. Holman DM, Benard V, Roland KB, Watson M, Liddon N, Stokley S. Barriers to human papillomavirus vaccination among US adolescents: a systematic review of the literature. JAMA Pediatr 2014;168(1):76–82. CrossRef PubMed
26. Daniel-Ulloa J, Gilbert PA, Parker EA. Human papillomavirus vaccination in the United States: uneven uptake by gender, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Am J Public Health 2016;106(4):746–7. CrossRef PubMed
27. Reagan-Steiner S, Yankey D, Jeyarajah J, Elam-Evans LD, Singleton JA, Curtis CR, et al. National, regional, state, and selected local area vaccination coverage among adolescents aged 13–17 years — United States, 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2015;64(29):784–92. CrossRef PubMed