Overview

The main message from the testing is that while some of the pieces of information may be required for permit approval, we should not require all of this information up front for the initial application submission. The process of approving a Temporary Outfitter Permit is a gradual one that requires a back and forth between the applicant and the Admin staff, sometimes over many months. The application format and admin area should reflect that process.

Overall Suggestions

Make less information required to submit the application, but create a more robust admin area to allow Special Use Admins (SUAs) to communicate and request additional info from the applicant over time.

Different states, forests and activities require a different level of documentation and have different requirements. We need to make sure the admin functionality is flexible enough to allow for different types of follow-up and requests.

This will also require the ability for a user to create a log-in to view submitted/in-progress applications.

Users were more concerned about details and accuracy that the SUAs. The expectation is that additional information required will be determined over time. Adding language, where appropriate, making it clear that for the initial submission only basic information is required but more details may be requested later.

Applicant Information

Most users commented on the fax number. Even though it was optional, they all called it out as something that seemed unnecessary.

Suggestion

Considering there are various requirements and processes among different states, it makes sense to leave this field in, especially since it’s optional.

Organization Type

Most users thought this was clear. Several users did not notice the upload field requirement, or that it only appeared for some of the choices. It was often “below the fold” and it was unclear that it was associated with the chosen organization type being selected.

Suggestions

Discuss adding the conditional upload directly below the associated type.

Not related to research: It’s not likely that we are asking the business type of the individual. Can we make it more clear that we are asking about the organization, in a way that doesn’t alienate individual guides applying? We may want to evaluate the possible confusion with this regarding all applicant info fields and labels.

Description of Proposed Activity

In general, users were concerned about being able to give the level of detail that is implied by the fields in this section. Start date and end date were confusing because most users didn’t know if that referred to the individual trip or the overall permit dates. All users felt they wouldn’t know the details (e.g., how many trips, locations, etc.) when initially applying for the permit. These were details they would plan after knowing they were likely to obtain the permit.

All SUAs felt that this section could be a general overview (types of trips, typical group size, ideal estimated location, etc.)

Suggestions

Change the language throughout this section to give more of an impression of requiring estimates and typical descriptions and activities. Possibly add a note making this clear at the top of the section and also indicating that during the approval process more details may (and will) be required.

Add a description of what a service day is and how it’s defined. We’ll need to do some research into that definition and how we might want to calculate it, due to different processes in different states, forests and for different activities. Bottom line, we want to make it flexible.

Advertising

Most users wondered why they needed to provide this information. Most guessed it was to see what the basic mission statement or specific trip details were. All users thought they would be able to provide a web address to give that info. Some users were concerned that applicants may not be able to communicate much about a marketing plan.

SUAs do review organization mission statements and trip descriptions, but may also check on required info and communications to help organizations meet the marketing requirements. SUAs need access to an organization’s main marketing channel. If it is a website, it will cover the requirement. If the organization does not have a website, they will need to provide some other info.

Suggestions

SUAs need access to marketing material. While a website seems like the most common solution, there is a chance some applicants won’t have one. Making a website required won’t work, but some info needs to be required. Let’s create a UI where the field/advertising section is required. By default, there is a field for a website. A toggle or checkbox can swap out the website field for a test field. Users can enter a website URL or switch to a text field asking for a description of their marketing plan or reason why there is no marketing material. This way, the SUA can get some insight into why there is no website and can reach out during the approval process to get the info they need from the applicant. It might also make sense to add an optional upload field to this section, allowing for the upload of any marketing material like flyers or brochures.

Client Charges

A few users were concerned with the nuance of their charges, scholarships, equipment fees, etc. SUAs were not concerned with the details as much as the applicants expected.

Suggestion

Add a field description for any details that might be important, like scholarship programs or additional fees. Guide the applicant to provide additional information they might see as important.

Guide Identification

All users were concerned about having this information ready when applying and how it would be uploaded at the same time. All users had large numbers of files for each guide. One user had a spreadsheet they created for this requirement that stored all guide info and qualifications.

Suggestion

Create a spreadsheet template for guide info (certifications, confirmation numbers, etc.) Then, SUAs can ask for additional proof of certification if they feel it is needed based on the trip details. Also allow users to enter an overview of their guide qualification requirements and training instead of uploading the guide info spreadsheet. This should include instructions that the guide info will be required later in the approval process.

All users and SUAs were positive about the idea of a Guide Database. This would allow professional guides to manage a profile themselves that is kept updated, along with qualifications, training and certification status. Then an organization could just attach particular guides from the database, instead of building and managing this info for every single permit application.

Operating Plan

Most users were concerned about this being ready before they knew they had an approved permit. Most users said that creating an operating plan was part of their trip planning process. They use it for purposes other than solely the permit requirement (e.g., guide training, client communication, etc.) So, uploading this file would not be an issue, but being able to do it later in the process would be preferable.

Suggestion

Create a more complete, easier-to-use template for the operating plan. Allow users to include a description of important parts of the operating plan in the form instead of requiring it for initial application submission. Clearly indicate that while the user can submit the application without an operating plan, they must provide one before having their application approved.

Liability Insurance

All users said they would have insurance, and that they could easily upload it.

Suggestion

No change

Client's Acknowledgement of Risk Form

All users said they would have this form and could easily upload it. One user said they knew that some guides/organizations did not require clients to sign these.

Suggestion

Change wording to make it clear that this is required if they require their clients to sign one. Keep it optional for organizations that don’t offer this to their clients.

Experience

Most users were concerned with this section and felt like they would want to include more information. Most users felt like this was their opportunity to make a pitch for their organization and wanted to be able to add more info. Several users were confused with who these details referred to (guides, organization or applicant)? Most users were concerned about the violations and citations section. They were concerned about the lack of a specified timeframe (how long do they need to look back for violations and citations?) They also wanted an opportunity to explain the nature of the citation/violation.

SUAs’ main use for this section is to learn about any other forests and parks that the guide or organization may have acquired permits from. This would allow the SUA to contact that forest or park to get feedback on the applicant. The citations and violations were not much of a concern. All SUAs said that covering 3 years of citations and violations was more than adequate.

Suggestion

Change language to make it clear the questions relate to the organization. There is a UI that allows for additional info so there should be sufficient opportunity for applicants to explain and provide relevant background info. We may want to evaluate making the open text field more apparent before users check the box.