Nothing Stays the Same Except for the Change!

A little more than a month since the last entry, and we're moving into the macro again. That's not to say that the micro has ended by any means. In fact, the micro is slowing us down at times: room bookings, finding instructors, deciding whether a C+ starts at 69% or 70%, figuring out which logos will go on which documents. Summer holidays have really been a detriment to steady progress, because not only have people been away, but decision-making has slowed ever ofr the people who were around. The first snap of cool air will remedy that, I suspect!

Yesterday, however, an interesting thing happened. The impact of organizational issues finally made itself known on the project level. One of the institutions is going through a major restructuring following a change at the helm. For a few weeks, change has been in the air, but nothing was finalized. Now, people have been formally moved into new positions and responsibilities, with a gradual shifting to occur from the old to the new. There's a fair bit of confusion about who will be doing what, as the idea is to let it "emerge". As a result, the working teams for the project have all been either disrupted or at least impacted.

My instinct tells me that this is not a good time to be pushing a major collaboration. The other, larger institution is a driving force, but the smaller one is critical to the collaboration. Once the dust settles, and new programs begin to get developed, they can incorporate new visions, but at the moment everyone is focused on their jobs, their colleagues, and trying to get their heads around their new jobs. More importantly, the smaller institution has not included any resources for the partnership in the next budget year, limiting its potential for involvement.

As a result, I think the best thing is to down-scale the expectations for the next few months. rather than coming up with a far-reaching system, I'm going to focus just on the most immediate tasks. That means that solutions to problems will be shorter-lasting, but more fitting to the immediate situation. For example, we don't need to have the grading rubrics from three faculties match up (which would be needed for a sustained initiative); we'll just match them up between whichever two most need to articulate courses at the moment.

It will be much easier, but it's disappointing because the lack of a larger vision and the associated lack of planning to leverage the necessary resources will reduce the quality of the initiative and make it much more difficult to move forward. I've experienced this a number of times: someone near the top of an institution has a great idea, but underestimates the working process, time and resources required. As a result, the vision cannot be fully carried out.

The solution: for every great idea, there needs to be a four to five month incubation period until the full depth of the project is known. I suspect this is a critical point in emergent program planning, when vision meets reality. At that point, a review of resources needs to be made, and the scope and depth of the project needs to be re-visited. Like the market "corrections" we're going through right now, there needs to be a "project correction", so that outcomes are again realistic and achievable.

In the months ahead, we'll be launching a number of partnership courses, and getting started on the planning of the new diploma programs. We'll be taking the planning process right down to the program level, instead of working at the much larger partnership level. It seems as if the project now has three elements: developing and sustaining the partnership systems (marketing, financial, administrative), launching individual courses (articulations, course outlines, teacher exchanges, logistics) and developing diploma programs.

The Nitty-Gritty Begins

We're moving from concepts into details now, and these details are affecting the concept. It's the cycle from the micro to the macro and back again. Room booking, registration processes, financial processes ... all of these must now be addressed, because we're moving into the launch of the first partnership program this fall. Because it's the first one, it will serve as the precedent-setter for a number of things. As such, the discussions are time-consuming and somewhat stressful. Both institutions are having to inspect and perhaps change what they're been doing for years (decades) in order for the partnership to thrive.

Communication is critical in everything. I've now formed a few cross-institutional committees in the hopes that information will flow more easily from place to place. Again, this feels like the macro connecting to the micro. The "doers" need to check in with the "deciders", and without trust and good communications we'd be hooped. Inevitably someone gets forgotten, and so we need to backtrack, inform and re-shape committees and lines of communication. The interpersonal politics are also making themselves felt now ... who wants to work with whom (or not).

At the same time, I'm having to keep the high-end decision-makers well-informed. They're the people that only need to come together every month or two to decide on the broad sweep of things. The upcoming meeting will be a really good check-in to make sure things are progressing as planned.

And things are going very well, in my estimation. We have three smaller partnerships programs and two large and exciting partnership programs being launched. The two bigger ones will take about a year to develop, but they'll be great to work on. The smaller programs are great opportunities for other areas who are more hesitant to experiment a little before committing to something significant.

End of Term, and a Breather

I've now been working on this project for 2-1/2 months now, and it's time for a review of realizations:

- In complex planning projects, so many things happen at once that linear and circular models of program planning are gross oversimplifications. My image of emerging, merging and transforming elements that happen in vague stages is far more accurate than I thought. It's about juggling any number of different balls at once, with different balls being dropped and/or added in at any given time. You may start with four of the same size and colour, but in no time you are given six more of varying sizes and colours, and you need to decide what to hang onto and what you can't. The skill and background of the planner clearly makes a difference in how many balls can stay in the air at a given time. But how can you build a model on that reality?

- Communication between stakeholders is absolutely the most important thing. You almost cannot communicate enough, because someone is bound to assume something and in no time you have the "assuming makes an ASS out of U and ME" situation.

- People outside the planning process have no idea what's involved, and so they consistently underestimate what it will take to launch a program, especially a complex one with multiple stakeholders, multiple programs, etc. The people who launch the idea in the first place also underestimate the need for their own involvement in the early stages. They have an idea, and like the conception and birth, but expect the idea to get a paper route right away.

Lest this sound like complaints, I have to say that I am loving this very challenging project, and things are going remarkably well. However, I'm aware that a less experienced program planner would be sunk in this situation. And I'm aware that someone following a simple program planning model would be side-swiped by the unpredictability of various stages and events.

I've now done the following:

- researched the big picture (environmental scan)

- interviewed most major stakeholders and gotten a sense of expectations

- mapped out a few processes

- started and met with three joint sub-committees

- identified six viable program areas

- gotten into the logistics and nitty-gritty of launching four courses

- done a DACUM brainstorming sessions with one program

- had meetings upon meetings upon meetings to keep everyone informed and engaged

- done tons of diplomacy work with the scared and/or overworked

- developed a program outline

- started to look down the road at formalities like COPSE funding grants, etc.

Thanks goodness for summer holidays. It'll slow down a little.

Conference Input

I'm attending perhaps the most radical conference on adult education I've ever attended (AERC/CASAE), and it's been fascinating to see my work through the lens of academics. I've come to understand that theoretical frameworks are the launch pad (or sounding board) for most people's work, and not grassroots activity. Interesting. As a result, I'm going to attempt to briefly "foreground" the theoretical frameworks that inform my work in program planning:

1) Complexity theory: all ingredients in the program planning process are interlinked and inextricable, and a combination of positive and negative feedback loops (this worked; that didn't) moves the process forward.

2) Chaos theory: order emerges out of the chaos of not-knowing, but may become "chaotic" again if there is a significant shift in thinking, a significant change in the progam planning "ingredients" (new people, funding changes, etc). Order is achieved slowly are carefully, not hastily or based on assumptions.

3) Emergence theory: chaos is self-organizing, so that if we allow enough time and space (and don't need to see order too quickly), a pattern will emerge and strong/weak ties between different tasks or people can be identified, so that strong ties can be pursued.

4) Community development: learning and development is a social process carried out by members of a particular "community". As such, true change can only be initiated by and carried out at the grassroots. However, external people, ideas or resources can influence or affect how this change happens. Dissenting, antagonistic voices become damaging, and so it's important to have a good handle on various voices within the community throughout the program planning process.

5) Learning in Context: Because individuals are part of the collective (which in turn shapes the individual), one must remain aware of the context in which the program is being developed. On a corollary note ...

6) Post-modernism: we can only ever known what we have been taught or allowed to "know". We are the products of our upbringing and our experiences, and have to remain vigilant about our biases and assumptions as we work.

7) Emancipation/liberation theory: There are always people with power and people who want power and people who don't even know that they could have power. As program planners, we need to remember that all education is political.

Sheesh ... so many theories, and so little time. Let's just do the work.

Turning Points

The program planning project is now well underway. The initial stage of research into demographics, labour market trends, post-secondary environments, and different kinds of joint programming is completed. I don't even remember all I've read, but I made extensive notes and will no doubt go back into them many times as I move through the different stages of the project.

Because of timelines, I also had to meet with marketing staff from both institutions to get a sense of their timelines and the tools (budget) available to them, because clearly visibility and "splash" are going to be important in this venture. That means though that we need to choose programs that can create a splash, and if we want to launch by fall, we need to choose programs with target audiences that we can reach over the summer. Programs that would appeal primarily to graduated high school students, for example, would be very tough to market over the summer, because school's out! There are however some EAL learners in daytime programs that can be reached, so we may need to choose programs that would appeal to that target group.

As a result, this project is already an example of how program planning simply cannot be linear, or even circular. While the first stage of research needed to be completed upfront, I've started marketing timelines and budgeting, but the identification of stakeholders has only partially happened. My sense of program planning as being an emergent process is more and more evident to me. Rather more like a catalytic reaction, one arising element can lead to any number of possible "next steps", which then contribute to what's known and what's needed, setting off a number of other catalytic reactions that require additional work. This exponential increase of elements that need investigating, completing and monitoring explains to me the sense of overwhelm that often happens at this early stage of program planning. So much is unknown, so much needs to be done, and yet nothing can move ahead without some preliminary decisions ... even if there isn't enough information yet.

For example, it's clear who the key (and powerful) drivers within the two institutions are, and thankfully their intentions are visionary and exciting. I can expect that innovation is desired and, in fact, expected. However, the stakeholders out in the community are less clear to me, and things are already moving so quickly that I'm not sure when I'll be able to consult with them. I think there will be unusual learner groups, industry partners and community agencies that I need to meet with. I may need to slow things down at some point to catch up on this piece.

In short, I only "know" what some of the internal stakeholders know, believe and want, and I need to start making decisions to get marketing rolling, but I don't have a budget approved, and I won't know until marketing comes up with a draft promotional strategy whether or not I can actually choose the courses I've chosen to help them get the marketing strategy started!

The familiarization with internal stakeholders has been going well though, and so I have some confidence that I'm on track, even if I have to tweak a few things. Interestingly enough, it's the people that are making some program ideas more viable than others. Technically, a number of connections can be made between programming in the two institutions. However, some people are more territorial about their programs, while others are itching to innovate, collaborate and build better programming.

Two program areas have emerged as highly dynamic and existing, for a variety of reasons. The remainder will be put on the back burner in terms of fuller development of certificate, diploma and/or degree programs. This puts the courses/programs to be offered into three tiers: stand-alone courses that help address wait list issues at one or the other institution; supporter courses that help students in some programs gain something extra, and full-on co-developed programs with a variety of correlated community-based initiatives. The latter of these are, of course, the ones that interest me the most. :)

Next we'll leave big picture planning behind, get the details of a marketing strategy underway, and begin to focus in on the two "splash" programs.

The Forest and the Trees

I've now done about a week of research, crunched numbers, and dug around in reports and bulletins, and I'm starting to find little bits of clarity around what needs to happen. I wouldn't call them conclusions, because I still don't understand the key stakeholders' needs and desires, but I am starting to get a sense of the lay of the land. I know the courses from both institutions, have a sense of how they're arranged into programs, and have compared the admissions requirements for each. I've also done an interesting scan of the larger educational environment and the labour market to see which sectors are saturated and which have little market niches waiting to be filled. I've also chosen a few target populations that I might be able to work with: immigrants looking to re-establish themselves professionally, Aboriginal professionals-in-waiting, "echo boomers" and men. The last surprised me, but they're so under-represented in some corners of the post-secondary world that they almost need to be treated as an at-risk group. Strange. Not what I would have expected.

Looking at the demographics from the institutions also told me what kinds of students preferred part-time over full-time studies, which will be helpful. And, in reviewing the admissions requirements of a big range of programs, I now have some sense of how things need to be laddered if we want people to be able to move themselves through a series of increasingly-advanced professional development opportunities.

However, I'm almost feeling like I'm at the cusp of this stage, which I'm going to call "Working by Candlelight". You can only see what's closest to the light, but the rest is still dark. I'm also starting to need some order in the "chaos". I've created a binder and am starting to sort the info according to the categories that are starting to emerge. The first "emergence"! By starting to label the sections of the binder, I am in fact beginning to identify themes and issues that I'll need to address. I've also got a good list of questions that I collected while re-reading everything I've collected to date.

Those questions will lead to the next phase, which will be my meeting with the stakeholders. I'll certainly be ready for them. I have big-picture info, medium-picture info, even some small-picture info, and I have some specific questions I need them to answer. I also have some initial ideas I want to test out with them. It feels like a "Sounding Board" phase, because I'm checking my assumptions. This will confirm and/or dispel my ideas to date. It will also give me a whole new pile of information to wade through ... a pile of rather subjective info, I suspect, because each stakeholder will tell me what they think and believe.

After this, I will have one more really good chance to stand back and think like an outsider, but after that I too will begin to work from within my assumptions and collected data. After that it gets harder and harder to stay objective and fresh-perspectived without conscious effort, because we'll begin to be on a roll and we'll need to start making decisions. Through big open vistas we will need to begin to lay stepping stones. No decisions needed yet though, and the open-ness has been lovely. Anything is still possible.

New Initiative in Program Planning

As program planning goes, a lot of the work is done on a smaller scale, developing workshops and courses to meet specific needs of particular populations, often in workplaces or community-based organizations. I'm going to be planning a much larger set of programs over the ten months however, and so I'm going to be implementing a "soup to nuts" program planning process. I'm curious what my working process will be, because I want to see if my theories about emergent program planning will be confirmed.

I'm going to try to determine what the stages and transformations are within the larger planning process, and I want to keep an eye on which things take precedence at which stage.

FIRST STAGE - The Wide Open Field

This first stage is of course the easiest stage, because the "ingredients" are limited. At the same time, the open-endedness of having so few ingredients could feel quite overwhelming if I didn't completely trust that I would soon find out which direction to head across the field, and that order would come to the chaos. It is exhilarating, because so much seems possible, but also a bit daunting, because there are gopher holes all over the field, and I hope to avoid most of them.

So far, I have a very vague sense of my overall task (develop new joint programs between two institutions to cement an educational partnership and bring in new student populations), I have an equally vague sense of who I'll be working with, but I don't yet know the stakeholders or what they really want out of this or what they will call "success".

I'm going to spend about 50 hours doing general research. I've started with a broad environmental scan: Manitoban demographics, Canadian demographic trends, baby boomer and echo boomers (the target student population), labour market trends in Manitoba, active employment sectors, Aboriginal demographics, immigrant statistics and demographics. So far, I've checked into existing, comparable diploma and certificate programs in Canada, Germany (too high level), France (not much help), New Zealand. I've found a variety of research reports on trends in Canada's post-secondary world. I've started one binder to hold general research, and another to hold program ideas from other colleges around the world.

I'm getting a sense of how different programs are structured, as well as finding out something about full-time vs part-time, entrance requirements, program flexibility, and academic support components. I haven't found anything wildly exciting yet, and feel like it's too early to be able to see anything clearly yet. It's tiring, because there's a lot to take in. I remember this from when I started writing the online EAL teacher certification program. It felt a bit like trying to count the grasses in a field, one blade at a time. There's just not enough information yet to have anything 'gel'.

Next week is the first meeting with both sets of stakeholders - in one room. I hope to be firmly enough landed in the world of post-secondary joint programming that I can ask questions that quickly get at the heart of the matter. I need to know the "secret" hopes and dreams for these programs. I need to know how each stakeholder views "success". I need to get up to speed and into their brains in one one-hour meeting. Then the search will broaden out, I suspect, and I'll enter a new phase of data-gathering.