The Model of Innovation Implementation in Action

THE MODEL OF INNOVATION IMPLEMENTATION IN ACTION:

CHALLENGES FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Brigita Janiunaitė

KaunasUniversity of Technology

Institute of Educational Studies

Lithuania

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University College Dublin, 7-10 September 2005

In most cases, effective creation and implementation of innovations determine the success and results of educational change. Innovations as a field of scientific research are highlighted in the works of many researchers (Barnett, 1973; Marsh, Willis, 1995; Rogers, 1995; King Anderson, 1995, Krainer, 2001 etc.). However, the analysis proves that separate models insufficiently reveal managerial activities of educational leadership, which determine successful implementation of internal and external innovations. Although, another important aspect is how to empower school community to permanent innovation creation and implementation (as well as to permanent self- renewal) during the process of innovation implementation; what challenges emerge for educational leadership during these processes. These aspects cover the problem of the paper. The article reveals educational leadership activities and steps of innovation implementation in different phases and presents the model of innovation implementation, which emphasizes implementation of external and internal innovations in the aspect of different agents and leadership activities. The model is based on the dynamic attitude towards innovative process (Krainer, 2001); the steps of innovation implementation (Havelock, 1973), characteristics of successful innovations (Rogers, 1995). This grounded model can be applied in school communities in order to successfully implement external and/or internal innovations by making educational leadership activities more effective and school community members' innovative potential more active, as well as empowering community self-renewal.

Key words: innovation implementation, model, leadership activities, educational project, Lithuania.

Introduction

We live in the world of social, economic and organizational changes. Political transformations and globalization of economy have over-crossed the boarders of regions, countries and continents. Modern states can't live in isolation from each other. We reinforce natural integration of national economies and cultures when international dimensions find their place in all spheres of our life. We change our perspectives, priorities and the way of living. We change our concepts of education, teaching and learning.

School (being a most conservative social institution transferring experience and cultural heritage of the humanity) is exposed to the changing requirements of the age. Now being responsible for developing future citizens of the world schools have to assure students' knowledge in multicultural partnership, mobility and exchange of information. We have to modify our traditional structures, methods of teaching and curricula. We have to improve our teachers' and managers' performance.

In educational organizations changes are inspired by implemented innovations that usually reach organizations through different projects. Leader’s role here is essential. The effectiveness of his performance depends on personal and team members’ characteristics, situational parameters and environmental interactions.

The leader has to react to characteristics of the realized changes and implemented innovations – their scope, duration, structure, aims etc. These characteristics determine the contents, forms and intensity of the leader’s performance.

Mintzberg (1986), McClelland (1987), Kotter (1990), Bennis and Nanus (1995), Du Brin (1995), Byrd (1998) analyze modern models of change management and peculiarities of transformational leadership (environment, motives, roles, etc.). They come to the conclusion that development of a vision, initiation and implementation of changes, effective communication, motivation of the staff and team leadership complement to the traditional management functions (in particular, planning, organizing, managing and controlling) and sustain effective performance in the context of change.

McGrawhill (1998), Rodney (1999), Bennet (1999) Šapyro (1998), Beernaert (2002) analyze the processes of initiating, implementing and institutionalizing a project; discuss their structure, aims and peculiarities of project management. All mentioned authors agree that a project manager's role is very important because 1) project coordinators must be very active and strong in assuring material, technological, legal and financial provision of the project and 2) they must be flexible and reliable leaders of the project team. In order to transform the idea of a project into a new experience and a practical "product" the manager must plan, organize, negotiate, participate and represent, motivate, lead, empower and evaluate. However, he/ she must be a transformational leader who assures high quality of performance in the context of a European project.

Clelland (1995) assumes that effective management of a project is impossible without a clear understanding of the whole educational program and/ or dissociating from the organization and the educational environment. According to Slavin (1998), it is irrational to deny this effective way of developing organizational culture only because your personal experience is not adequate for the requirements of change management. Schools participating in European educational partnerships or international mobility projects always need a well- experienced, flexible and motivated project coordinator who is ready to take the lead of the transformation processes.

The above mentioned problems provide rationale for the research problem, which may be defined by the following questions:

• What personal qualities should the leader possess during the innovation implementation?
• Do leader’s personal qualities create assumptions for successful innovation implementation while realizing European educational projects?

1. THE MODEL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EDUCATIONAL INNOVATIONS

A lot of researchers studied the structure of the innovative process (Lewin, 1951; Rogers, 1962; Hage, Aiken, 1970; Zaitman, Dunkan, 1970; Miles, 1987; Fullan, 1991; Potashnik, Lazarev, 1995; Marr, 1993; Zagvedinski, Pilmanova, 1998, Melnik at all, 2000; Gunin, 2000; Iljenkova, 2001; Thom, 2001 et all). When analyzing the works of the researchers, the different segments of the process of implementation of the innovation can be detected: phases, stages, etc. All these concepts coming from Latin origin semantically are synonymous (lot. stadia – the stage of the development of a phenomenon; sin. “phase, level, period”; fr. etape – the stage or phase of the development of a phenomenon) but in the work the concept phase is chosen. The researchers emphasize the structure of the innovative process dividing it into phases.

Fullan (2001) proposes that many of the researchers emphasize the three phases of the process of implementation of innovation. The first is the phase of initiation when the decision to implement then innovation is taken. The second is the phase of implementation when the innovative idea is implemented into practice. The third is the phase of institutionalization when the question if the innovation becomes the part of the system or if it is rejected is solved.

So it can be stated that all the phases supplement each other and are realized as the cycle of continuous implementation of innovation.

According to Fullan (2001), it is important that a) every phase consists of different elements and during the implementation process they are influenced by certain peculiar factors; b) two end interaction between the phases discloses the fact that the process of implementation of the innovation isn’t linear process, but the process during which the events in the same phase, can influence processes in the other phase (Vonlanthen, 1995); c) it is of great importance who starts implementing the changes; d) the perspective of the duration of every phase can’t be identified very clearly. Thus Fullan’s (2001) division of the innovative process into phases is significant because the interaction of the phases is disclosed.

Activities of the phase of initiation. Before starting the process of implementation it is of great importance to evaluate who will do it: will it be a person, the group of persons from outside (scientists, partners, consultants and etc.) or it will be performed by the inner agents – a group of managers, project team and etc. will formed in the organization; or it will be the united outside – inner team. In the context of the phase of initiation it is important for the outside and inner agent to evaluate the organization, group, subdivision in which the innovation will be implemented, before performing the comprehensive diagnosis.

The “client” can be an individual, a group of them, an organization or community. In this work sometimes we will call the group a “system”, when they have common aims and try to work together achieving the implementation of the aims. Sometimes it won’t be clear who the clients are. It is very often observed that we can’t work with one group effectively because at the same time we work with the other with those who are connected with the previous one. Such interrelation can be very complicated and difficult to control. So it is very important in the very beginning to define who the client is. Two questions are supposed then:

1)Who is the direct client (The whole organization, a separate structure of it, a group, etc)?

2)What are other groups the client is connected with?

Diagnosis is a systemic try to grasp the contemporary situation. Good analysis is the client problem’s characterization which includes the main details of symptoms, history and possible reasons. This diagnostic phase should be started from the most apparent client’s “ache” – his demand. In the beginning of diagnosis the client is helped to formulate his demand: to define his “ache”, to grasp the aching spot and to find out the source. In the end of the diagnosis this demand should be transformed into a problem, formulated so that the agent and the client could act rationally and succeeding in solving it.

There are three means to do it.

The first is to identify the problems. The second is to identify the possibilities, those spots of the strong sides and maximum potentialities. The third means is to look at the organization as a system, a collection of elements, which should work together in order to reach the common aims. All the three means are good and can be used for diagnosis.

When knowing the problems of the organization and having a lot of information about it one or another innovation can be chosen to solve the problem. It is mostly the phase requiring the most of creativity and competence. This process can be of four stages:

1. Concluding due to the results of diagnosis;
2. Generating the ideas of possible means to solve the problems;
3. Evaluating the relevance and suitability of the innovation;
4. The moment for beginning the innovation and its application.

Usually there are many possible ways to solve the problem. Thus the described stages are also possible ways to do it.

Activities of the phase of implementation. This phase of introducing the innovation is one of the most important in this process, i.e., after the preparatory work the innovation can be introduced in groups of individuals, organizations and it becomes obvious how the individuals accept it.

According to Hopkins, Aiscow, West (1998), the implementation is the phase which received most of the researchers’ interest, and during which the innovation is being tried. But it requires deeper analysis because it is a multidimensional concept including changes on many different levels and associating with the varied individual activities (Fullan, Park, 1991). During the realization processes in this phase many new skills are acquired, certain results are achieved; new duties for the work groups are assigned. It is very important during this phase to carry out the action plans, formulate and keep the promises; to watch the progress and to solve the problems. Schley (1998) emphasizes that at this moment it is very important to do the first steps, which should be evaluated in order if it necessary to adjust activities planned in the previous stages. This author defines the boundaries between for the phase of implementation - from 3 to 12 months; though other authors do not outline the terms. The first steps of the phase of implementation the researcher associates with the conception I MUST (Soll – Konzept), i.e. with the realization of the plans prepared during the period of conceptualization.

Schley (1998) thinks that the main activities which should be realized during the phase of initiation are: to start implementing the innovation, to warrant the means necessary for its implementation, to form the structures and procedures needed, to emphasize the good experience and following it adjust the practice if needed, to evaluate the outcome.

The insight of the researcher that the team work during this phase is very important is very precious. He treats the involvement of the community members into the practices of the initiation phase as the phase of team normalization. According to the author, during the phase the rules of the game are established, directives, norms which can be adopted in the real practices, as well in cooperation. In this sense the management of the team is the management of the productive paradoxes, contradictions and conflicts.

In the context of the implementation phase Thom, Zaugg (2001) foresee that in this phase the management aspect is very important but it doesn’t mean that in this phase creativity which was so important when generalizing the ideas is denied. The creativity is emphasized in the sub-phase of “implementation of real new ideas”. Meanwhile the sub-phase “presentation of new ideas to the addressee” is linked with new communicative skills because the activities delegated, information connected with the implementation of innovation has to reach the participants of the process in the shortest ways and should be comprehensible and be clear. The researchers notice that when implementing the social innovations the sub-phase “the control acceptance” is realized within the organization and mainly it is connected with the evaluation. Thus it is important in the organization to create the proper instruments for evaluation. After evaluating the researchers’ notices disclosing the scale of practices of the phase of implementation, it can be stated that this phase of implementation of the innovations is associated with the element of designing the structure of genesis because the designing in the structure of genesis reflects the detailed planning and documentation of the idea. The conclusion can be drawn that:

• The plans of innovation realization of innovation which were designed during the phase of initiation are realized in the phase of implementation;
• In order to succeed in realizing the plan it is necessary to: a) to coordinate properly the activities of the implementation phase and warranting the process by supplying it with provision and information; b) to regulate properly the activities of then participants in the phase of implementation.
• The main instruments are: detailed plan and documentation, applying the norms and rules, effective usage of the channels of information and communication.

Activities of the phase of institutionalization. It would be ideal to think that every client participating in all the phases of realization of the innovation is ready to help him/herself and understands the processes of diagnosis pretty well, etc. But in reality problematic questions arise: how to ensure the continuation of the certain innovation though it is accepted by individuals and organizations; how to empower the continuous renewal of organization and the skills for renewal of every individual. The security of the continuation is associated with the phase of the institutionalization. There are 6 characteristics warranting the continuation:

1. The permanent emphasis on the strong sides of the innovation;
2. Practice and routine;
3. Structural integration into organization;
4. The continuous evaluation;
5. The warranty of the continuous maintenance;
6. The development of skills of continuous adaptation.

Thus the essence of this model is that it embraces the three phases of the realization of the innovation and the activities which are performed in every phase. The expression of the personal qualities of the leader will be analyzed in the article through the model of the realization of the innovation.

2. THE LEADERSHIP IN THE CONTEXT OF REALIZATION OF THE INNOVATION

Leadership is the art of the impact on people which influences them by means of persuasion and example set; it’s a personal skill to influence another person enhancing his determination for broader practices. The leader is the person who is able to gain the confidence and support of other people who are needed to reach the aims of the organization by motivating and coordinating their activities (Du Brin, 1995).

Theoretically the position of the leader of the group can take any member of it but every often it happens so that some people never become the leaders and some are accepted as leaders very naturally, because the group itself shows confidence and gives him/her the power.

Du Brin (1995) discloses the differences between the modern leadership and traditional management, defining the management as administrating which is closely connected with planning, organizing and control; and the leadership as the new functions of the leader: the combination of formulating the vision, performing the efficient communication, motivating the personnel and their partnership, initiation and realization of the changes. (see Table 1).

Table 1

The differences between the leadership and the management (Kotter, Du Brin, 1995)

Phases / Traditional management / Leadership for changes
Foreseeing activities / Plans: prepares detailed plans, distributes resources / Foresees the direction: formulates the vision and strategies to achieve it
Creating the net of structures / Organizes: found the structures, chooses personnel, delegates authority, designs the system of monitoring / Involves people: passes over the information about the vision and strategies for the people whose partnership is useful/ profitable when establishing teams
Performance / Controls and solves the problems: watches if the results correspond to the planned ones and does adjustments. / Inspires and stimulates: persuades, helps to overcome the bureaucratic barriers, and satisfies the main needs.
Results / Establishes up the structure which produces the product. / Establishes up the helpful change which forms the background for the new product

During the time of instability and cardinal changes when reacting to the external changes the organizations have to change them greatly, i.e. the culture and structures of organization, the transformative/ reformative leadership becomes extremely important as it gives more freedom because: