“Implementation Intelligence”©

The intersection of three powerful factors - capacity, competence, and confidence, creates implementation intelligence. Unfortunately and more often that not, organizations as well as product, program, practice, or service providers fail to assess, develop, monitor and adjust for each of these to determine whether or not their “solution” will be implemented effectively.

First and foremost, too many assumptions are made. 

One very common assumption is either under or over estimating “change”.  Teetering on the obvious, organizations are in constant change but very few actually have a change management plan or a theory of action for change.  This in part explains why change and “changing” runs the gambit of emotions, feelings, and experiences not to mention success or failure of implementation.

Why is this?

Lack of implementation intelligence is my quick and easy but not so simple to do response.  Change management is well documented.  As we have each experienced, there is no linear, predictable, or tried and true path for change or changing.  Yet, there are factors that, if addressed and planned for, can reduce or minimize the deviation that so often undermines the best of intentions with implementing “new” or “different”. 

Previously I shared a very cursory look at the capacity factor.  In this piece, I will share in a like manner, the competence factor.  As it suggests, competence connotes “an ability to do something successfully or efficiently”.  Words like adequate or sufficient are associated but lack, I think, the quantitative nature of being competent.  Being competent is where acquired and learned skills, knowledge, and application collide to produce results or evidence of competence.  

Akin to the difference of an educator being highly qualified versus being high effective, the designation of highly qualified by its definition has little to do with the “effect” of the educator.  Rather, it was believed that a college degree, state certification and a subject matter or grade level test equaled “effective”.  We now know that what constitutes high qualified is just the starting line not the finish line.

We learned that being qualified does not mean being competent according to my definition.  To be competent would require the degree, certification, and test score producing an “effect” - the “effect” being learning growth and improvement as a result of instruction.

Many folks get uncomfortable with the term or concept of competent.  Let me dispel one association many make with the antithesis of competent – incompetent.  When we are learning to do something for the first time we are incompetent.  It doesn’t mean we are unintelligent it means we have not acquired the skills, knowledge, or application to successfully and efficiently use, do, employ, or etc. whatever it is we’re learning.

Competent as it relates to the implementation of product, program, practice, or service is similar.  When an organization is learning  “new” they are incompetent.  Shifting from incompetent to competent does not have to be complicated.

Central to the shift is learning if, and to what extent, the organization has a change management strategy or theory of action?  Have they used it successfully in a previous implementation?  If yes, how?  If no, do they know why it didn’t work? What did they learn?

This is not about the company’s theory of action or change management system.  Rather it is the organization that is implementing that is of paramount importance.

How pervasive within the organization is the awareness and understanding of the “what”, “why” of the new product, practice, program or service?

Lastly let me suggest that seldom do organizations authentically and transparently change what they know to change what they do.  Asking, “What must the organization ‘un’ learn or suspend to learn something new?” will provoke different thinking – a first step in learning.

To increase the likelihood of implementation success begins with understanding myriad assumptions about individual and organizational competence. When it comes to implementation intelligence the commitment to recognize, assess, and plan for competence is critical.

Capacity?

Do we have the individual and organizational capacity to implement a new product, service, program or practice?

How do we know?

As foreshadowed previously, failed implementation as well as the failure to implement effectively and efficiently is attributed to implementation intelligence or the lack of.  Assessing capacity is foundational to implementation intelligence.  Here’s why -

No system can produce or perform beyond 100% of what it was designed to do or produce.   

To do so, requires a system adjustment, modification, update, refresh, modernization or retrofit to improve the design and thus performance.  In essence, by doing one or more of the aforementioned actions, the system capacity is reset.  

I actually learned this while having work performed on my 1995 Suburban.  The "Burb" as it is fondly referred to, is closing in on 20 years of service.  Some 240,000 miles later, the vehicle is still in pretty good working order.  There are some parts that are no longer manufactured and in the situation I recently found myself, there aren't "after market" or previously used parts readily available or cost effective to use.  

Enter my 21st century "technician" who, after explaining "our" challenge, turned his screen around and showed me there were at least three solutions to solve the problem, increase performance, and would permanently eliminate the possibility of the original problem ever occurring again.

After some additional conversation I learned that the original system design or function of this particular part was to mitigate limitations caused by what can only be classified as then state of the art technology that became antiquated.  With the advent of new technologies that could easily be installed, the part I needed to replace was simply no longer needed.

I asked what he thought were any liabilities or downside to this action.  He said, “none”.  “Would the vehicle still perform as good without the original part”, I asked.  He said, “It will actually perform better”.  He went on to say, “The solution we are using wasn’t available when the system was first developed.  It is now and in fact has become standard on all vehicles.”

Over my career I have experienced many failed attempts to implement incredibly powerful products, services, programs or practices designed as solutions to system design limitations.  Almost universal, successful as well as failed implementation can be attributed to individual and organizational capacity, competence, and confidence.  These three components are interdependent and are essential if implementation fidelity is the goal.  Teetering on the obvious – it is!

How do we assess capacity?

Time, energy, and effort are good starting points.

How many initiatives are currently in motion?  What are they?  Why are they?  When did they start?  How are they being monitored? Measured? Are we the getting the desired or expected results?

A slight variation of an oft-used metaphor about forests and trees is apropos.  Without initiative mapping individuals and the organization "can't see the forest from the trees".  

Utilizing an “affinity process” or other quality tool, leaders can quickly begin the initiative mapping - a critical component of capacity assessing.

As stated earlier, capacity is but one of three critical components.  Leaders must assess, focus, plan and monitor all three if implementation fidelity is the goal.  

Next, I will unpack competence.

Why Can't We? Policy and Permission May Be Responsible

The fact that we haven't achieved universal literacy should be justification enough to do whatever it takes to make it so.  But, it hasn't to date.  In fact, the reality of failed learning as well as the failure to learn causal to literacy has for the most part eluded the best of intentions by educators, best of innovative products, programs, and services, and for so many have led to the conclusion that it will never be achieved.  Why?

Recently I was asked that very question, “Why haven’t we achieved universal literacy”?

My non-dissertation response was two things – Policy and Permission!

Policy needs to change to “suspend” certain requirements to focus on literacy – the use of time being chief among these.  Additionally, permission must be given with respect to empowering educators to focus on literacy.  Educators individually and collectively need more than responsibility and accountability for results; they need the authority to make the necessary decisions in all things and in all ways to ensure universal literacy. 

Though at first read my response may appear over simplistic but it really isn’t.

Taking a closer look as to why we haven't been successful will reveal not a conspiracy, not a lack of will or caring, not a lack of effort, nor a lack of resources.  Rather, the most contributing factor to our inability to eradicate illiteracy is the lack of implementation fidelity – our inability to effectively and efficiently implement programming, practices, products or services to ensure literacy is more or less attributed to policy and permission.  

Here are three questions to consider:

First, to what extent do schools and school systems assess for the capacity, competence, and confidence to implement effective literacy instruction?  

Second, to what degree do schools and school systems map current literacy initiatives in an effort to determine if and to what extent initiatives compete for resources, conflict with one another, or send confusing messages about priorities?  

Third, to what extent do schools and school systems assess mission creep, vision clarity, and sustainability of current or planned literacy initiative implementations?

I confess that to some the aforementioned questions contain terms or concepts not generally associated with schools.  However, they should.  The reality that they are not is in part the problem.  For example, "mission creep".  Most organizations especially private sector know and understand that their mission integrity is critical for focus, alignment, results, product or service quality, customer service, client care, brand management and managing the brand the experience to name just a few.  

Public sector too often assumes mission integrity for a variety of reasons.  However, mission creep creates significant variance, disconnect, and dysfunction.  To be fair, mission creep is directly reflective of policy and permission or lack of. 

As the aforementioned questions suggest, mandates masked as policy, add never subtract expectations, requirements, or demands that more often or not create frustration, confusion, and conflict with the mission.  In concert, permission to abandon seldom if ever is given to empower educators to align as well as focus effective instruction, practices, and programming to ensure literacy.

The answer to all three questions is at best inconsistent and at worse, not very effective.  Most educators are not trained in implementation intelligence.  Providers of products, services and programs for education know how their particular solution is to be implemented.  However, more often or not this is singular and not within the context of myriad initiatives a school or school system are attempting to implement simultaneously.  

Ensuring literacy?  The step that must be taken is to assess what I am calling implementation intelligence.  In the weeks ahead, I will unpack implementation intelligence in much greater detail.  For now, let me suggest that "mission creep" is a first step.  

Let this question provoke your thinking just a bit - can each individual in your organization recite your literacy plan?  

Moreover, if each individual in your organization were accused of living your organization’s literacy plan, what evidence would be presented to convict him or her of such a crime?

Good News - We're Americans!

"The biggest force behind falling American rankings is not that the United States is doing things much worse but that other countries have caught up and are doing better. The U.S. system of education and training is inadequate in the new global environment.”  By Fareed Zakaria, Published: May 1, 2014

Words matters!

Context matters!

Rather than tear down American education and attack those who daily work to provide students across this nation the highest quality education that each community expects and requires, Zakaria strategically fires across the bow of policy makers and educators alike with the real challenge is that we as a nation have been complacent, distracted, or possibly deceived into accepting as well as approving policy, regulations, and law that has resulted in American public education no longer being the envy of the world let alone preparing at least two generations of American students with the skills, knowledge, and experience for the present and future global environment.

Are we surprized?  We should be!

We trusted elected officials to create policy, fund adequately, and provide leadership to ensure that American education was in all ways the standard bearer for the world.    

As we have learned, they didn't.  In fact, though argumentative to some, the direction to narrowly define the quality of education by a single metric set in motion a mindset of chasing a test score rather than developing the habits and discipline of learning that yield critical thinking, real world problem solving, collaboration, communication, perseverance, creativity, and more.

The damage is done.  

We have graduated not only from high school but from college students that only know education as something less than what it should be, could be, and would be if we were focused on what is right, good, and true for our nation, economy, society, security, and the obvious, each learner.

Though too late for many, it is not too late to get our proverbial "act together".  I have and will continue not to move away from the shameless reality that we have not eradicated illiteracy in our nation.  From a pure economic perspective, it is just too expensive to remediate failed learning rather than aggressively prevent intervention and remediation the first time.

As objections abound for what I just stated, let me just point out that we must change what we know and think to change what we do.  An aggressive prevention model requires suspending many of the practices, policies, and programs that, in part, are factors that work against universal literacy in our nation.

The questions that remain are all about courage, conviction, and character.  The damage to creativity, imagination, innovation, and love for learning caused by narrowly defined accountability in conjunction with our inability to focus on eradicating illiteracy has contributed to American education being surpassed by other nations.

There is good news - we are Americans!  The only barriers we face are self-imposed.

"IT" or "X" - You have Control

The “IT” factor has long been identified as the factor that made the difference either in individual, team, or organizational success albeit in sports, entertainment, politics, or etc.  Defining the “IT” factor not scientific in any way.  That’s why it is an “IT” or the X factor - you know it when you see it, hear it, feel it, or experience it. 

As professional football concluded their annual draft, the “IT” factor was tossed around and attached to several accomplished college athletes – some more known than others.  The pundits and prognosticators provided their speculation, conjecture, and opinion of “IT” before and after each selection.  “IT” was graded, rated and reported by “experts” not necessarily knowing what, why or how the drafting team had assessed the prospect – all part of the glitter, glamour, and drama of the draft.

Not one draftee has made a roster or played a down.  Teetering on letting the air out of the balloon, “IT” is to be determined.  Several factors will determine whether or not “IT” will happen.  Given the NFL is a business, much time, energy, and effort is devoted to assessing the athletes to increase their likelihood of success.  The common fan may not know that a wide variety of tools that evaluate both physical and mental acuity of potential players.  These include on-field skills, speed, strength, quickness, reliability, personality, and cognitive ability assessments to assist teams in making player selections.

The import and utility of actual college game performance are more or less about getting the attention of would be employers.  Too often, outstanding college performers do not translate into pro bowl selections and world championships.  Thus, the need and employment of multiple measures to assess and complete a player’s portfolio that provides a more robust assessment of their potential.  

Still, the “IT” factor goes unexplained or measured for that matter.

“IT” will depend on more than the assessments.  What defines great performances, great contributions, and great achievements cannot necessarily be measured by an assessment.  If it could, it would.

How does any of this relate to education?

More than we think.

The NFL draft is akin to college or university admission, selection, and acceptance.  The SAT, ACT, GPA, letters or recommendation, high school transcripts, community involvement, activities, athletics, and essay to name just a few of the multiple measures used in determining admission do not necessarily generate an “IT” factor during or after the university experience.   

Much to the chagrin of many parents, the “IT” factor for college and to a certain extent, the NFL will develop from characteristics, habits, attitude, resilience, perseverance, preparation, humility, and learning – some of which are learned and some of which are natural.

I recall vividly a conversation with a former NFL player who shared with me the parity of athleticism in professional football.  He told me there were countless individuals that possessed athletic traits such as speed, strength, and agility far better than his that never played a down in the NFL.  The difference between him and the others were drive, determination, discipline, and something he described as “readiness”. 

I asked, “What is readiness?”

“Readiness is preparing, training, practicing, rehearsing and not hesitating when the opportunity presents itself”.

That’s “IT”.

“IT” is not chance, luck, circumstances, or whether or not you are drafted in the first or last round or not at all.

For those not selected in the draft or not accepted to your “dream school” - Let it go! 

“IT” is still a reality for you – if you choose it to be.

Subtract Two Before Adding One

I was reminded this past week of just how much our communities, states, and nation suffer from “amnesia” specifically as it relates to public education.  The calls for further requirements, directives, and mandates albeit punitive or not will only increase as we endure “silly season” (AKA political campaigning) that is ubiquitous and never ending.   

Whether or not the memory lapse is intentional at worse, selective at best, public education bares more often than not the brunt of “amnesia” when it comes to purpose, role, and responsibility. 

This is very evident in schools and school systems that are not currently meeting the expectations and requirements of a narrowly defined accountability model as well as the advent of more rigorous, robust, and demanding teaching and learning standards.  It’s not my intent to argue, debate, defend, or criticize their merit.  It is what it is!

But, hold on!

The amnesia I am referring to is the amount of responsibilities that have been added to public education over the past 114 years.  More strikingly, we have forgotten that little or nothing has been removed or abandoned from public education irrespective of the import or utility of programming or practices.

Akin to the energizer bunny – we just keep adding!  Jamie Vollmer, in his work of over two decades chronicling the “added responsibilities” to American public education commencing in 1900 through the present (http://www.jamievollmer.com/blueberries) illuminates constant and consistent load increases on the public education system. 

Reviewing Vollmer’s compendium of initiatives, mandates, and legislative edicts illuminates what education, let alone policy makers haven't done very well or possibly, at all.  That is, the systematic or strategic abandonment ineffective or antiquated policies, practices or programs. 

There must be a collective granting of permission to “stop doing” before “start doing”.  I am keenly aware that this is easy to say and not so simple to do.

I believe the underlying reason is the inability to “think” differently about “how”.  More often than not, traditional thinking about “new” work is limited to what people know.  They know their current workload, expectations, and requirements.  These filters are used more as obstacles rather than opportunities to reflect, review, and assess current practices, programs, and procedures.  Leadership as well as policy makers seldom give permission to invest time in this kind of reflection with the purpose of "stop" doing something.

Policy makers, if sincere about improving public education, should embrace the aforementioned formula before considering mandates, directives, or initiatives. 

What are we going to stop requiring?

What are we going to stop mandating? 

It is not easy to stop doing something.  However, it doesn’t have to be so.  We now more than ever have the analytics to assist us in determining both effect and efficiency of initiatives, practices, and programs.  We must monitor and measure no less than quarterly making sure that we review as well as reflect actual performance rather than opinion.  Again, we have the tools to do this and more. 

All I do know is that we have exceeded the capacity of a system that was never designed or envisioned to deliver what is now expected and required.  Equally, I am convinced that if permission is granted to abandon ineffective and inefficient “things”, the public schools can and will be successful in educating each learner.

Lastly and to those who don’t support public schools I ask you to make time to review Vollmer’s “list”.  My best hope is that you will come to the same conclusion depicted by Pogo; “We have met the enemy and it is us” (1971, Walt Kelly).

We have the responsibility, accountability, and authority to do what is right, true, and good on behalf of our students.  The question remains, do we have the courage to do so -