I
have been with Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University for 5 years. In these past 5 years I have seen more changes
happen within this organization than any other organization that I have worked
for. Part of the change has a lot to do
with supply and demand. Many students
are making a shift to online learning, preferring the flexibility and
adaptability that it offers as opposed to traditional bricks and mortar
classroom environments. This shift of
preference to online learning was surveyed back in 2011 through a collaborative
effort between the College Board and Babson Survey Research Group (Blair, 2014). Results of the report showed that a
staggering 6.1 million students were taking at a minimum, 1 online class during
2010. That accounts for about one-third
of the student population in higher education.
The report also shows that 65% of institutions of higher learning agree
that the online modality is intrinsic to their long-term strategy and growth. These facts are important to note because this
is what has propelled Embry-Riddle to innovate at a very rapid pace. This needed change at the organization is
what McKeown calls industry pain
which is “where existing structures and processes change in response to newer
ideas and technologies” (McKeown,
2014, Part 1, section 5). He
explains that there are necessary and unnecessary pains involved when we give
up old ideas for new ones but it is part of the innovation process. At Embry-Riddle this meant switching to a
centralized schedule and introducing new technologies such as EagleVision. As always, change can be uncomfortable and
there has, and still is, a process of adaptation. This is why new ideas sometimes come under
attack “because they disrupt situations we like or simply because they are new”
(McKeown, Part. 1, Section 5).
How
did ERAU tackle this issue? By building
a bigger brain. Faculty, staff and students
alike where involved in the innovation process.
Feedback from each group was essential in problem-solving the inevitable
move to a preference for online learning.
If students were going to be taking more online classes we needed to
make sure that the online experience was amazing! ERAU also recognized that “innovation works
best as a collective activity” (McKewon, Part 2, secion 1). In addition, our leadership team counts on
industry leaders, donors and clients to gain knowledge, resources, Intel and
insight on ways to meet the demands of this changing academic environment.
Canfield
talks about Continuous Improvement (CI) initiatives as a way to look for and
eliminate waste from the organization (Canfield, 2011). He explains that 10-30% of revenue is wasted
if we don’t deliberatively improve and innovate. ERAU in my opinion was facing this same
situation with processes that were no longer providing the kind of revenue it
used to (in classroom instruction). Canfield
(2011) recommends a problem-solving process, or sequence of questions when
trying to innovate. The sequence is to
Plan, Do, Check, Act. These are steps
that could be taking when trying to problem solve. You can’t just jump in at the first of a new
idea, but instead plan and prepare with your innovation team. Severson outlines 10 best practices for
workplace innovation and the first one he discusses is that you have to “focus
on rigorous study and improvement of the Right Work Process within which a problem
presents itself” (Severson, 2005). Basically that you need to consider the work
process involved in solving the problem and not just the problem itself. Then, experiment with ways of
improvement. Through the experiment
process we should be checking and comparing results to make sure we are meeting
our target. And lastly, we implement the
final innovation plan, or if necessary create or revise a new plan. ERAU seems to have followed a similar
sequence when innovating the academic environment. Beginning with a planning and preparation
process which involved the formation of committees that would help brainstorm
and lend ideas to how to improve our modalities as well as transition into a
more untraditional e-learning environment.
Before any new programs and processes were launched there was also a
period of experimentation and training for those individuals or departments who
would be affected by these new changes.
Feedback was constant as well as continuous comparing and matching results
to try and reach the target improvement.
Lastly, the final step was implementing the new programs or processes
for innovation. A great example of this
is when we implemented a program called Campus Solutions which replaced our
antiquated system of student records. There
was an experimental process and initiative, lots of training, kinks that had to
be worked out, more training, more kinks and finally the implementation. Most importantly, the collective brain that
was heading this project, made of many people from many departments inside and
outside of the organization, all were contributing their skills, resources,
expertise, and personal experiences.
Such an array of diversity of perspectives and ideas ensured that every
situation, problem and angle was looked at and solved. In regards to the collective brain, Canfield
also talks about forming Leadership and Guidance teams (Canfield, 2011). As I mentioned earlier, ERAU has used this
strategy when implementing new changes.
I remember coworkers of mine from different departments being invited to
participate in brainstorming sessions and committees when new innovation
initiatives have been introduced. He
explains that Leadership and Guidance teams are able to reduce their target
process expenses by 10-30%.
Some
examples of innovation plans gone wrong with my organization are for instance
when we created a Math lab tutoring session. The idea was great but it was not executed
well. First of all, it was not
advertised to the students correctly so no one really knew about it. Also, it was not consistent, so sometimes
students would log on to the tutoring session and there would be no one in the
session. There were also some technical
issues that were not worked out. Another
example of poor planning is the current process for students ordering their
caps and gowns. In the past the campuses
would order the caps and gowns for the students. This year, in an effort to innovate the
process, they have actually made it worse. Students are now responsible for ordering
their own caps and gowns but they are still required to request that they be
sent to the respective campuses. This
has become very confusing for both staff and students and in the end, campuses
have had to step in and rectify the mistakes and make the orders.
The
important take home from all of this is that innovation is necessary for an organization
to prosper and grow. As leaders we are
responsible for making sure that the right strategies, people and approaches
are in place before implementing any innovation plan.
References
References
Canfield, J. (2011). Imagine: Ideation skills for
improvement and innovation today. Black Press: Holland.
No comments:
Post a Comment