Implementing Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail Not establishing a great enough sense of urgency We underestimate how hard it can be to drive people out of their comfort zones Not creating a powerful enough guiding coalition Needs “senior management” (i.e. beyond the department) Vision lacks clarity – leading to confusing, incompatible projects Under-communicating the vision (it’s hard to “over-communicate”) Not removing obstacles to the new vision E.g. organizational structure, compensation, rewards, behaviors Not systematically planning/creating short-term wins People need to see evidence that the work is producing results Declaring victory too soon – real change takes time Not anchoring changes in the Department’s culture Change sticks when it becomes “that’s just the way we do things” Pietersen, Willie. 2002. Reinventing strategy: Using strategic learning to create and sustain breakthrough performance. John Wiley & Sons. Kotter, John P., 1995, Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review.

Implementing Change in Geoscience Education: examples from a survey of departments in the process Description Progress/Success Factors Barriers/Challenges Situation Analysis Recognized School-level constraints Mapped offerings to understand gaps, issues Lots of interest in individual courses, but not in thinking holistically about program Have tp convince faculty of need for change Vision/Strategy Retreats are useful Broad participation – some engaged outside agencies or alumni to understand key skills Need a champion Difficult to convene large committees – need find alternate ways to engage all Difficult to keep committees focused Lack of support from Administration Tactics/Implementation Matrix approach successful for many, not all Specific Learning Outcomes helpful Leveraged existing univ. or dept. processes Small victories: consolidate degrees; add new specializations; increase majors Different awards for different faculty roles (teaching/research/service) Participation in NSF-IUSE, Pathways Lack of “enforcement” mechanisms Lack of interest among faculty Curricular changes are not independent of expertise, marketing, teaching loads, enrollment, etc. Separate how-to-teach from what-to-teach Time! Learning/Sustainability Major changes in early 2000s – now new revisions can be incremental (i.e. the process takes time) Yearly assessments that show skills contributed by specific elements of curriculum Going beyond institution to state system helped Go slow to allow feedback at multiple stages Quantitative assessment at course level is tricky to measure Difficult for students to transition from absorbing to generating knowledge