The Norval Morris Project

"Counselor perceptions of organizational factors and innovations..." by Joe, G. et al.

2008-02-22T00:45:00Z

Researchers from Texas Christian University studied a large population of drug abuse counselors focusing on the individuals as treatment counselors with respect to training and organization, a departure from the norm of studying counselors in the aggregate to ascertain the behavior of the organization. [Joe, G. W., Broome, K. M., Simpson, D., & Rowan-Szal, G. A. (2007). Counselor perceptions of organizational factors and innovations training experiences. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,...(read more)

"Organizational readiness for change and opinions toward treatment..." by Fuller, B. E. et al.

2008-02-21T00:01:00Z

The authors noted a significant gap between evidence-based practice (EBP) innovations and their adoption in the mental health care profession. [Fuller, B. E., Rieckmann, T., Nunes, E. V., Miller, M., Arfken, C., Edmundson, E., et al. (2007). Organizational readiness for change and opinions toward treatment innovations. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 33 (2), 183-192.] Based on an in-depth review of implementation research, six core elements were identified as critical to adoption of and maintaining...(read more)

"Assessing program needs and planning change" by Rowan-Szal, G. A. et al.

2008-02-20T21:54:00Z

Personnel from the Texas Christian University (TCU) examined the organizational functioning of alcohol and drug abuse treatment centers across two states in the Gulf Coast with reference to strategic planning, in particular staff training needs and transfer of evidence-based practice into clinical settings. [Rowan-Szal, G. A., Greener, J. M., Joe, G. W., & Simpson, D. D. (2007). Assessing program needs and planning change. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 33 (2), 121-129.] Two TCU-developed...(read more)

"Complementary Use of Qualitative and Quantitative Cultural..." by Yauch and Steudel

2008-02-14T00:48:00Z

The authors' goal was to ascertain key cultural factors that enhanced or detracted from companies' ability to institute new manufacturing techniques, while evaluating the qualitatiave and quantitative methods used to analyze their organizational culture. [Yauch, C. and Steudel, H. (2003). Complementary Use of Qualitative and Quantitative Cultural Assessment Methods. Organizational Research Methods, 6(4): 465-481.] Hypothesis Tested Using qualitative and quantitative research methods in a...(read more)

"What's New? General Patterns of Planned Macro-Institutional Change" by J. L. Campbell

2008-02-13T20:07:00Z

Campbell interprets the process by which planned institutional innovation and change occurs to build a foundation for a planned institutional change theory . He notes that much literature on institutional change pays scant attention to the process, and he wants to fill this void. The issue is significant, he asserts, because institutions affect technological innovation and learning, and, in turn, the competitiveness of industrial sectors and national economies (Casper, 2003; Edquist, 2003; Finegold...(read more)

"Organizational Culture and Leadership" by E. Schein

2008-02-12T22:53:00Z

This book is a thorough and thoughtful treatise that provides a functional/structural explanation of organizational culture. Schein draws upon his broad as well as deep understanding and experience with organizational culture change. He also lays out foundational principles for understanding the dynamic interplay between leadership and organizational culture. First-hand, long-term experiences with different companies' cultures, change and leadership are offered to illustrate and help the reader...(read more)

"Blueprints for Violence Prevention: From Research to Real-World..." by Mihalic & Irwin.

2008-02-12T21:16:00Z

What impedes and fosters implementation success when evidence-based programs are applied in real world settings? This was the overarching question in a two-year study conducted by the Blueprints for Violence Prevention initiative, launched by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (CSPV), Boulder, Colorado. After a succinct historical review of the literature and research regarding "what works" in the field of criminal justice, the authors note that "what is missing is...(read more)

"Sentencing in Context: A Multilevel Analysis" by Ulmer, J. T. & Johnson, B.

2008-02-10T22:40:00Z

The organizational culture, social context and local judiciary influences on criminal sentencing decisions in Pennsylvania from 1997-1999 are the subject matter for this multi-level, quantitative analysis conducted by Ulmer and Johnson. [Ulmer, J. T., & Johnson, B. (2004). Sentencing In Context: A Multilevel Analysis. Criminology, 42 (1), 137-178.] The authors elaborate on two pioneering studies by Britt (2000) and Kautt (2002) that offered key methodological and theoretical contributions. This...(read more)

"Fostering a Performance-Driven Culture in the Public Sector" by Risher

2008-02-06T22:20:00Z

The role of culture in organizations and hands-on management practices that support performance as a cultural priority within the public and private sectors are the focus of this author. [Risher, H. (2007). Fostering a Performance-Driven Culture in the Public Sector. The Public Manager, 36 (3), 51-56.] Mr. Risher furthers our understanding of organizational culture by citing the simple definition by T. E. Deal: "the way things get done around here ;" and the more academic definition by...(read more)

"Technologies for Personal and Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Knowledge Management" by Tsui

2008-02-06T20:47:00Z

Citing a lack of research literature regarding Knowledge Management (KM) for individuals, this KM guru provides a comprehensive 53-page review of the literature and products involving Personal Knowledge Management (PKM). He also identifies the impacts of "disruptive technologies" regarding the future of knowledge capturing and sharing in the workplace. [Tsui, E. (2002). Technologies for Personal and Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Knowledge Management (Electronic Version). Computer Sciences Corporation...(read more)

Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review...by Greenhalgh et al.

2008-02-05T18:26:00Z

A systematic and far-reaching review of empirical literature and theory was conducted in the UK pertaining to the diffusion of innovation within the health-care service field and other service organizations. With these findings, the authors provide: an evidence-based conceptual model delineating the process by which innovation is transferred in health service organizations a "robust" and replicable methodology for the systematic review of policy and management the identification of gaps...(read more)

Cultural Transformation in a Health Care Organization....by Barriere, et al.

2008-01-30T20:08:00Z

I nnovative leadership is the driving force behind cultural transformation. Organizational change is fostered in an atmosphere of trust and realized over time. Essential to successful, innovative structural change are interpersonal leadership skills which are flexible yet consistent. Change operates from the "bottom-up," as well as from the "top- down." These are the conclusions of Barriere, Anson, Ording and Rogers in their case study of an 1,800-employee, cardiac hospital in...(read more)

"Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature," by D. Fixsen, et al

2007-11-05T17:33:00Z

This is a seminal article that summarizes the research on the new and overdue discipline of implementation. The latter research and thus this document are slightly biased towards human service (versus business) experience in implementation. The authors undertake an expansive and thorough review that enables them to distill several helpful frameworks (i.e., generic implementation conceptual model, core -implementation - component framework, framework for how organizational and external factors might influence the functioning of core implementation components, and defined stages for implementation). In addition there is a comprehensive section summarizing the research findings related to program start-up (e.g., recruitment, training/coaching, evaluation and fidelity). Finally, consistent with the authors' primary thesis (that successful implementation requires a longer-term multilevel approach), the concluding chapter in this document includes specific recommendations tailored to four different audience levels or stakeholder groups: 1) policy makers; 2) researchers; 3) implementers; 4) purveyors or consultants. This document should be required reading for each of the latter groups.

[Fixsen, D., Naoom, S.F., Blase, D.A., Friedman, R.M., Wallace, F. (2005) Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231). http://nirn.fmhi.usf.edu/resources/publications/Monograph/index.cfm , 119 pages.]

Conceptual Model and Framework

The conceptual model for implementation that Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman and Wallace lay out is extremely elementary and pragmatic, containing five components: 1) Source; 2) Destination; 3) Communication; 4) Feedback; 5) Influence. The outcomes derived from this model are:

Changes in adult professional behavior
Changes in organizational structures and cultures
Changes in relationships to consumers/stakeholders

Their five-element model performs as a lens for better specifying the activities designed to put into practice an activity or program of known dimensions.

The framework depicting the core components for implementation (also known as implementation drivers) consist of a six stage (component) cycle:

Selection,
Pre-service Training,
Consultation and Coaching,
Staff Evaluation,
Program Evaluation,
Facilitative Administrative Supports.

Within this cycle the authors see learning generally progressing "from orientation and new learning to mechanical use, routine use, refinement, integration, and innovation as new knowledge, skills, and abilities become developed." The six components above are all deemed to be highly interdependent (or in the authors' terms, integrative and compensatory).

Fixsen et al. frame organizational contexts and external influences as critical; "systems trump programs". They diagram a simple model of three concentric rings, with the inner core circle containing the above implementation drivers (e.g., training, coaching, performance measures), the next outward ring the organizational components (e.g., selection, program evaluation, administration) and the final outer ring portraying the Influence Factors (e.g., social, economic, political). The three frameworks (conceptual model, core components and organizational and external influences) articulated in this document are depicted as having elegant linkages that form an overall ‘ecology' of implementation; these frameworks are also unique to the new field of implementation.The authors have deduced from their immense literature review (more than 1000 published articles were given a full text review) six stages of implementation which are reflected in the figure below.

They consider the above stages to be sequential, each with unique performance requirements that to the degree met, will either increase or decrease the probability of subsequent implementation success.

It is difficult for a 2-3 page synopsis to do justice to this comprehensive document summarizing implementation literature. The authors have taken great care to craft a document that is as elegant in format as it is foundational in scope. The reader, whether policy-maker, administrator, line practitioner or consultant, will find numerous take-aways, helpful sound bites and aphorisms in this document to guide their future implementation work. Some quotable examples follow.

Before we begin to delve into the mysteries of implementation, we want to affirm the obvious. Implementation occurs in the context of community.
A persistent problem encountered throughout this review of the implementation evaluation literature is the lack of a common language and the lack of a common framework for thinking about implementation.
A purveyor is an individual or group of individuals representing a program or practice who actively work to implement that practice or program with fidelity and good effect.
An advantage of having a well organized and persistent approach to implementation of evidence-based practices and programs may be that the purveyor can accumulate knowledge over time.
...the real world of applied psychology as an environment full of personnel rules, social stressors, union stewards, anxious administrators, political pressures, interprofessional rivalry, staff turnover, and diamond-hard inertia.

"Scaling Social Impact: Strategies for Spreading Social Innovations" by Dees, et al.

2007-11-04T17:28:00Z

Citing the "common challenge" of replicating innovation, the authors ask the fundamental question of how social innovations can be successfully spread to reach greater populations. Following years of interviewing social entrepreneurs and social-sector leaders, Dees, Anderson and Wei-Skillern suggest a need to assume a "more strategic and systematic approach" to the definition of social innovations and their ability to be adopted. They provide case studies of both successful and unsuccessful examples of spreading social innovations.

[Dees, J. G., Anderson, B. B., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2004). "Scaling Social Impact: Strategies for Spreading Social Innovations." Stanford Social Innovation Review 1(4): 24-32.]

Social innovations are disseminated, according to the authors, in three ways:

organizationally;
via a program;
and through principles.

The organizational model is spread within an "overarching structure," which utilizes people and resources for a common good. The program model is based on a set of actions which serve a defined purpose, often requiring community organizations to follow specific guidelines, some of which are licensed. Finally, the principles model uses a more general format as a guideline to achieve a given purpose.

Forms of Social Innovation

Dees, et al. give specific examples of these social innovation forms, which have been transferred or scaled successfully acknowledging that the three main forms often overlap.

Organization: The first "community" foundation was created in Cleveland by Frederick Goff in 1914. Goff brought together individual donor assets and community board expertise with charity-needs knowledge in a manner that allowed for pooling of resources and sharing of overhead reaching beyond the scope of private foundations. He introduced the community foundation model to community leaders nationwide, and variations on hundreds of those foundations are in existence today, note the authors.
Program: In 1990 at a Cleveland hospital, Boot Camp for New Dads (BCND) was launched by a father of four to help new fathers learn how to care for their babies. In response to growing demand, founder Greg Bishop designed a fee-based program package to help hospitals, churches and other organizations implement, train and market the boot camp program. More than 180 BCND programs are now located in 38 states.
Principles: The founders of the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) have helped develop a national network of high-performing schools in underprivileged areas by recruiting and training leaders in that field. The general guidelines include a core-set of principles called the Five Pillars (i.e., the first principle is "High Expectations"). The principles can be applied flexibly but are backed by stringent goals for academic performance. The KIPP network has expanded from serving 50 students in Houston in 1994 to a network serving 4,000 in 32 public schools nationwide.

Three methodologies for spreading social innovation are delineated:

dissemination,
affiliation, and
branching.

Dissemination is the simplest form of transferring innovation. It resembles a "recipe" for change by providing direct information, instructions, and a model for communities to follow and replicate. Thus, dissemination has the least local control or input into its implementation. Affiliation is less dogmatic and more flexible in its approach to spreading innovation than dissemination. Although affiliation is a formal relationship between parties over time, it exists within a network structure, which can be either loose (organizations committed to the same goals) or tight (business franchises.) Finally, social innovations can be spread through branching, which can have either tight central control or more local autonomy. Branching works much like "company owned stores" in that there is one large, central organization that then "branches out" into locally-owned and controlled businesses. Successful branching depends on the specific practices, knowledge, and values of the central organization being followed by local agencies. The authors place these three modes of spreading innovation on a continuum with greater and lesser degrees of central coordination and larger amounts of resources. Specific examples of each form of scaling are cited.

Finally, the authors analyze five guiding questions, "The Five R's" that social entrepreneurs must address in order to determine the most strategic way to scale social innovations. They are:

Readiness (Is the innovation ready to be spread, and can it be defined clearly to others?)
Receptivity (Will the innovation be well received by the community or met with resistance?)
Resources (Are there sufficient resources available for scaling?)
Risk (What are the chances for success or failure of the innovation, and is the scope of risks understood?)
Returns (What is the bottom line? How well will the community be served?)

The authors conclude this article with an analysis of YouthBuild USA, based on this nonprofit's utilization of the definitions and scaling strategies discussed.

Tools/Knowledge Objects/Resources/Contacts/Etc:

Social Innovation Entrepreneurs, Projects, and Initiatives examined:

Interview with Bill Strickland (Manchester Craftsmen's Guild, an after school arts program for at-risk kids, Bidwell Training Center, an adult vocational training program);
Greg Bishop (Boot Camp for New Dads);
Frederic Goff (community foundations);
Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) and Five Pillars (excellence in schools programs);
Interview with Darrell Hammond (KaBOOM! local community playground building);
Paul Brainerd (Social Venture Partners, individual philanthropists teaming up with local non-profits);
Nancy Lublin (Dress for Success, suits for low-income women to wear to job interviews and in early employment);
Dorothy Stoneman (YouthBuild USA, construction and refurbishment of buildings by at-risk youth, and associated academic and job training program).
author email contact: J. Gregory Dees -- gdees@duke.edu.