Nybg Strategic Plan

The New York Botanical Gardens Strategic plans were amazing because they transformed the NYBG from an institution in stagnation both financial and physically, to a rejuvenate institution that was better fit financially and physically to help its community. The key steps that help the NYBG strategic planning process was the democracy involved in the planning process, having a clear vision and mission for each plan, and ambitious thinking or ‘blue-sky’ possibilities as it was called in the plans. Democracy was a big key to the success of the all the Strategic Plans implemented by the NYBG. Instead of just focusing on what the board thought was important for the success of the museum, the president of the New York Botanical Garden since 1989 (Long),

It helped the employees of the institution see that this plan was not for the success of the board or just Long, but for the triumph of everyone in invested in the Garden. Those whose concepts did not make it into the completed plan received detail reviews by their peers so that they knew why it was rejected. Democracy in the plan also allowed for members of the Garden to present ideas that they had been thinking about for years. It foster collaboration between departments and push many out of their comfort

Most strategic plan last for 3-5 years, but the NYBG 1st strategic lasted for 9 years. According to Long there was too much to do and it would take longer than the average 5 years. Two years went into the initial creation of the plan, involving the staff, and crunching the numbers. Then 7 years went into the plans implementation. The planners were realistic in the planning goals for the Garden. Their mission and vision was clear they wanted to reinvent the Garden. They no longer want the NYBG to be seen as a public park, but a museum for plants. Implement new outreach programs for the public that would enrich their experience at the Garden and give new vigor into botanical research. They also wanted to restore many of the Garden’s historical sites and implement new infrastructure to the museum. Financially they wanted to reduce government aid while increasing the museum’s income and