1. 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.

2. 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