The Nature of Innovation in the Community College: Guidelines for Innovators

 

Sponsored by Furniture for the Electronic Classroom

January 2010, Volume 13, Number 1

 

by Cynthia Wilson

 

Throughout 2009 the League for Innovation in the Community College, with support from MetLife Foundation, conducted a research project on “The Nature of Innovation in the Community College.” (See Leadership Abstracts, December 2009.) Among the project’s goals was the development of a set of guidelines for community college educators who have ideas for solutions to problems and challenges, but are not sure how to turn those ideas into action. The guidelines were developed from results of the project’s survey of winners of the League's Innovation of the Year Award at 19 League colleges between 1999 and 2008, and from interviews with more than 40 award winners at those colleges.* The project did not study the innovations themselves; rather, researchers focused on the processes and practices—the nature—of innovation.

The list of guidelines is in no particular order, nor is it intended to represent a linear progression. Interviews with award-winning innovators reveal that innovation can be a messy process of stops and starts, with ideas pieced together from various contexts; they can begin with a single focus and evolve into major transformations, or they can begin as major transformations and end with a single solution for a smaller but persistent problem. They are a blend of creativity and practicality, established processes and emergent design, thoughtful planning and immediate flexibility.

Demonstrate a need. Whether facilitating student success in a course or program, helping elementary students improve reading skills, or surveying local leaders to identify strategic directions for the community—all examples of award-winning innovations in this study—demonstrating a need is key to gaining support for an innovative idea. Asked to select “all that apply,” respondents to the survey of award recipients indicated that their motivation was to improve student learning (59 percent); improve an existing system, process, practice, or procedure (55 percent); improve student retention or attainment (44 percent); or meet a community need (39 percent). These most frequently selected responses relate to meeting a need of some sort. Survey respondents also indicated they conducted at least some research as they pursued the innovation; such research can support a demonstration of need. Asked to select activities conducted as the innovation was being developed and/or implemented, respondents indicated a review of literature (46 percent); pilot or field tests in the college (46 percent); interviews or conversations with colleagues in other colleges who had experience with a similar innovation (28 percent); and surveys of faculty and/or staff (35 percent), students (25 percent), and community representatives (22 percent).

In interviews, award-winning innovators talked about establishing need by gathering information, reviewing research literature, and observing and listening to those they and their departments serve. An associate professor of graphic communications advised colleagues to “do the research first; do the legwork.” A technology director said her team’s award-winning innovation was designed “to meet a business need and to satisfy the phone calls, the walk-ins, the ‘we need something’” and other requests from colleagues. The chair of natural and social sciences at one college described the impact of demonstrating need in terms of student success: “[Show] others how this can impact the students they work with, and once you’ve done that, then it’s just a cascade and one success leads to another until the project is fully implemented.” And a vice president for student development posed questions leading to innovative ways to improve student success: “How can we improve things? How can we be more innovative? And not just be innovative for the sake of innovation, or change for the sake of change, but to really think about what differences we can make that will really have an impact on student learning.”

Develop a vision and a plan. Some award recipients stressed the importance of identifying the vision and scope of an innovation early in the process so, as an information literacy librarian put it, “you’re not going off in 50 different directions” and “you can use your time and your energy and your resources efficiently.” A campus president cautioned that, “When you think you’re done planning, then you really need to plan some more.” And a learning communities coordinator agreed that commitment is important, but also indicated that innovators should “be flexible and allow for change to happen.”

The accidental innovation. Award winners also talked about what the researchers have termed “accidental” innovation, including innovations that are not initially perceived by their developers as innovative or that are unintended consequences of some other project or activity. A math professor explained, “What’s funny is that we in the math department didn’t think it was innovative. We thought it was logical,” and an associate professor of accounting said of his team’s project, “We started the project to benefit our students and didn’t even realize it was an innovative project until others outside of our college…started approaching us, asking us questions about our project…and that’s when we decided, OK, we’ve got something a little different here.” A political science professor described one form of accidental, or serendipitous, innovation when she said, “I think most innovations probably have been percolating with people for some time and there’s just a point at which an idea that you have sort of meets some opportunity to bring it to fruition.”

Put the plan into action. Some award winners cautioned against too much planning, including a web systems manager who expressed concern that at times educators “spend too much time planning and not enough time implementing.” He further explained that, “sometimes you just need to go with the flow…so that we get some action. It may not be perfect, but we can adjust as we go.” A computer information systems professor advised that, “Innovation is not only having the idea about doing something, but it’s also about doing something, about pulling it together and making it happen.” Innovators outside technology also commented on the need to act on the plan, as with a learning communities coordinator who said, “Just thinking about it or talking about it over coffee won’t get it done.”

Talk with colleagues. Still, discussing thoughts and ideas with colleagues can be a way of garnering support and building a team around the concept for an innovation, and in some cases may be the germination of the innovation itself. An emeritus professor explained how his involvement in several committees led to connecting similar conversations among various groups and ultimately gave rise to an award-winning innovation he described as “a clearinghouse for ideas relating to the promotion of teaching excellence.” One mathematics professor noted that her team’s innovation “was an idea that started inside a meeting one day,” and a social science professor said his team’s award-winning curriculum revision project helped break down departmental silos when faculty “who had not talked to each other very much because they stayed in their isolated discipline” gathered in interdisciplinary sessions to “talk about things they had not talked about before.” Twenty-seven percent of interview respondents indicated that support from colleagues was among the three most important factors in the success of the award-winning innovation.

Build a team. Eighty-five percent of survey respondents indicated that their innovations were created by teams, and an overwhelming majority of these survey respondents rated as Highly Important “the innovation was better for being a team—not individual—effort,” (78 percent), “involvement of a team has improved the innovation’s chances to endure” (74 percent), and “the collaborative process produced benefits beyond the innovation” (70 percent). Only 5 percent of respondents selected “difficulties among the individuals working on the project” among the three most significant barriers to implementation. In interviews, award winners described the value of diversity on a team. The business and public services dean at one college was reminded of “the Lego analogy: you really have to put a lot of different colors, a lot of different shapes, many different perspectives together to build that critical coalition of people who can then innovate in a meaningful way.” Other award winners mentioned the importance of partnerships, described by a marketing manager as “people coming together, working together, trying new things,” and by a director at another college as trying “to find a partner in the community.” He continued, “We are community-based colleges…and we find partners in the most unlikely places.”

Secure administrative support. “The biggest thing is to have support from your boss,” according to an accounting professor at one of the participating colleges, echoing 99 percent of respondents to the project’s survey of award-winning innovators who indicated “College leaders visibly support and encourage innovation” as Somewhat Important or Highly Important. Award recipients also explained the reasons why this support is important, including the director of educational programs and partnerships who acknowledged that, “you have to have an advocate,” and a coordinator who claimed that, “a key to any sustained innovation is to have whoever is in charge of the money to support you.” A program director spoke of the value of encouragement and moral support, noting that “it’s the smiles when the administrators come out and actually see the program going that is most important…giving us a great pat on the back, giving us support, and cheering us on.” Almost 40 percent of survey respondents selected “support of college leaders” as one of three factors that were most important in the success of the innovation, and 44 percent selected the importance of “an institutional culture that supports and encourages innovation.” Thirty-two percent indicated that the primary source of support other than financial support came from the president’s office or vice president’s office.

Dedicate the required time and effort. Innovators were not shy about discussing the amount of hard work involved in the process, nor were they slow to acknowledge that the required time and effort contributed to the success of their projects. A student services secretary noted that, “the process of innovation is going to take a lot of work, a lot of time, a lot of effort, not just to bring your idea to fruition but to continue that idea to make sure it is ingrained in the college’s processes and culture.” “When you talk about innovation in a college…,” explained an English professor, “what you’re really talking about are lots of people being willing to do hard work and being willing to continue it year after year after year.” And a program director cautioned that innovation is “hard work. I think if you’re coming in thinking this is going to be easy, it’s not.” When asked to select the three factors that were most important in the success of the innovation, 71 percent of survey respondents selected “you and/or your team’s enthusiasm and perseverance.”

Evaluate the innovation’s effectiveness. With increased attention to accountability and data-based decision making at community colleges, evaluation of the innovation’s effectiveness was on the mind of several interview participants. A campus president compared evaluation to a journey, noting that without it, “you know you’re kind of there and maybe you’re in that general direction, but you really don’t know whether you’ve arrived.” A department chair described the metrics used to determine the success of her innovation: “When I first came and I asked the president of the college what will be my measure of success, she said enrollment, and I said and what is that expectation? And she said, If you have 100 students by the end of the first year, we will be happy. And we had 1,500, and it continues to grow.”

Tie the innovation to the college mission, values, and goals. Innovators stressed the importance of ensuring the innovation supports the college mission, values, and goals, with advice such as that from an honors college dean to “make sure that you are consistent with the mission of the college.” An executive vice president of continuing education and training described “the magic of innovation” as “being creative, having a great idea that’s central to our vision, to our mission, to our core values, and then making sure that the innovation is sustainable.” Asked to select the three most significant institutional outcomes of the award-winning innovation, 70 percent of respondents selected “acknowledged by college leaders as a value to the college,” 54.7 percent selected “embedded in the culture of the college and accepted as practice,” and 51.2 percent selected “changed behavior of individuals for whom the innovation was created.” Almost one-fourth of respondents (23.9 percent) selected “helped implement the college’s strategic plan.”

Take risks. Innovators applauded community college cultures that not only allow but also encourage and reward taking risks. They spoke of cultures and mind-sets that do not fear failure, but instead choose to learn from unsuccessful attempts, make adjustments and improvements, and move forward with the idea of succeeding in future efforts. Survey respondents also indicated the importance of a culture that promotes innovation and risk-taking, with 43.5 percent selecting “an institutional culture that supports and encourages innovation” as one of the three most important factors in the success of the innovation. Respondents rated as “Highly Important” or “Somewhat Important” several characteristics of a college culture of innovation, including “college leaders visibly support and encourage innovation” (99 percent); “risk-taking is encouraged; faculty/staff do not fear failure,” (97 percent); and “faculty/staff are encouraged to think creatively and unconventionally” (96 percent).

In interviews, several innovators described the importance of a culture that encourages employees to take risks and praised their own institutions for supporting the risk that is inherent in innovation. A workforce development dean described the culture of innovation at her college—a “culture that allows us to try new things”—as “the best thing the college does,” and a director of educational programs and partnerships thoughtfully described her college’s culture as one where risk-taking is not only encouraged, but also expected: “One thing about an institution that really believes in innovation is that there’s no penalty for failure…. Many times you learn more from something that doesn’t work out as you anticipated than something that runs very smoothly. And I think that when you know there’s no punitive outcome to something that may not work out as you anticipated, then people are very free to try something new. And I think the expectation that [the college] has, is you are expected to think out of the box and be innovative. And if you don’t, then you don’t really fit the…culture.” An advising director said, “Sometimes innovative ideas and plans don’t pan out the way one would hope they’d do…. But I think you have to have a certain level of experimentation and any kind of experimentation is going to allow for a certain degree of failure.”

Plan for sustainability of the innovation. Survey respondents were asked to identify efforts that have been made to sustain the innovation, and 52.9 percent indicated “staff have been assigned responsibility to ensure continuity”; 43.5 percent selected “the innovation has expanded to serve a larger number of students and/or faculty”; 40.1 percent selected “support has been incorporated into the annual budget”; and 35.8 percent indicated “organizational structures have been created that reflect ownership and support.” In interviews, innovators were asked specifically about the current status of their innovations, and responses indicated support for sustaining the projects and programs was incorporated into the college budget or driven by external funds, or both. A web systems manager said of his team’s project that, “it’s become a mainstream activity at that college…the underpinning of our student services counseling model…and with it becoming a viable commercial entity, we hope to see it thrive and grow and spread across the country into a number of community colleges.” And a center coordinator spoke more generally about sustainability: “If the innovation works and is thriving and continues to help the opportunities that are available to the student body…the college will continue to support that innovation and in some cases the innovation will support itself.”

Using the Guidelines. The League encourages community college educators to use these guidelines to stimulate thought, conversation, and action around innovative ideas to solve problems, overcome challenges, resolve issues, and, ultimately, contribute to student learning and success. We recognize that this list is not exhaustive and invite readers to add to the list in the comments section below.

This article is an abridged version of a section from the project’s report to the field. The report has been produced in both text and video formats and will be available in coming weeks at www.league.org/natureofinnovation. Findings from the project will be the topic of a keynote presentation by project researchers Terry O’Banion and Laura Weidner at the League’s Innovations conference in Baltimore, March 28-31, 2010.

*The survey was distributed to 400 Innovation of the Year award recipients; 117 responses were received for a response rate of 29 percent.

Participating Colleges: Anne Arundel Community College (MD); Central Piedmont Community College (NC); Cuyahoga Community College (OH); Dallas County Community College District (TX); Delta College (MI); Foothill-De Anza Community College District (CA); Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning (ON); Johnson County Community College (KS); Kirkwood Community College (IA); Lane Community College (OR); Maricopa Community Colleges (AZ); Miami Dade College (FL); Monroe Community College (NY); Moraine Valley Community College (IL); Seattle Community College District (WA); San Diego Community College District (CA); Santa Fe College (FL); Sinclair Community College (OH); St. Louis Community College (MO)

Posted by The League for Innovation in the Community College on 01/29/2010 at 3:34 PM | Categories: Learning Abstracts -