Innovation in Education: Tools and methods for success (Session 1)

Innovation in EducationTools and methods for success

Session 1: Concepts and Models

8 de abril de 2014

Escola Superior de Educação do Porto - Auditório Central da Biblioteca R. Dr. Roberto Frias, 602 | GPS 41.177252,-8.599733

Mr. Kelwyn Looi, Analista; Office of Sir Michael Barber, Chief Education Advisor Pearson UKDr. Andreas Meiszner, Senior Advisor; European Learning Industry Group

Workshop supported by HOTEL project (HOlistic approach to Technology Enhanced Learning), a FP7 Support action.

Scope: Model that will help innovators to come

• From point A (idea, research, early prototype, small scale innovative practice)

• to point B (innovation, advanced prototype, exploitable product, large scale innovative practice)

‒ making a significant progress, faster and in a consistent way

‒ taking a holistic approach (e.g. technical, theoretical, educational, relational, social, business, etc.)

TEL innovation ecosystems (WHO)

Possible origins of TEL innovations

Technology and Industry-led, via availability of a new technology, normally not specifically designed for learning

Research-led, in which learning theories search and find application in experimental learning settings

Practice-led, spontaneous bottom up innovation emerging from individuals or communities of teachers and learners that find original ways of using technology to materialise new ideas about learning and teaching and are able to demonstrate their effectiveness in new contexts of use;

Policy-led innovation, materialised by the many national programmes launched since the 80s to diffuse ICT and its use in classrooms.

Technology

PracticeTheory

TEL Innovation drivers

Holistic approach

Difficulty of adoption and scale (WHAT)

Systemic changes in one of these innovation types, can introduce changes or innovations in the other 3 types as well.

Not linear, single rooted, or independentBUT

Systemic, several converging technologies, often competing, complex interactions of

many players, holistic solutions

Need for Supply –demand integration

Kamtsiou 2013

Technological Framework (according to the nature of innovation)

Technology assessment: Technology readiness GAPs/SWOT analysis & further developments

Stable technology platforms

evolution based on trends

Functional logic of implementation(supply – demand

chains)

DisruptiveTechnology Foresight

linear/incrementalTechnology Forecasting

Emerging technologiesand their possible commercialization

Replacement of existing practices, products,

technologies, Opportunities and Threats

Stable areas of technology development

SystemicAdoption and change

management

Co-Innovations value blueprints

Innovation or co-innovation – can you tell?

Possible strands for TEL innovations; lessons from the STELLAR & TELMAP projects

Personal Learning Environments (PLE) Open Educational Practices (OEP) Personal Learning Networks (PLN) Open Educational Resources (OER) Massive Online Courses (MOOC)M

assi

ve

Colla

bora

tion

Engagement Awareness

Models of cognitive sensors

Text mining

Haptic & gesture interfaces

Augmented reality applications

Simulations

Serious games

Big data/learning analytics Predictive models Content, context, networks

Weblog analysis, text mining

Questions:

• What are appropriate analytical frameworks to classify innovations, and properly understand their advantage/contribution within a pedagogical context

• How can we help innovators to:• properly formulate their ideas in a way which aids introduction• assist them in developing indicators to improve their

diffusion/adoption• understand how their innovation fits to current learning practices

• OVERALL: How can we accelerate innovation cycles’ speed in TEL

The HOTEL project has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)

under grant agreement number ICT-318530.

Inovação na educação Ferramentas e métodos para o sucesso

Sessão 1 Inovação na educação: Conceitos e modelos

8 de abril de 2014

Porto, Portugal.

A measurable impact on improving someone’s life through learning

Kelwyn Looi

Office of the Chief Education Advisor, Pearson

Dr. Andreas Meiszner

European Learning Industry Group (ELIG)

Agenda

1. An introduction to the Efficacy Framework at Pearson

2. Discussion: the Efficacy Framework as a: a) Tool that supports / enhances existing innovation support

models

b) Tool that can be used in entrepreneurship / start-ups

c) Tool that can be used in the Portuguese higher and adult education context

3. How can the efficacy framework be applied in your line of work?

4. Q&A

11 Sessão 1: Conceitos e modelos l April 2014

What we aim to achieve

• An understanding of the Efficacy Framework and its use as a tool to transform the way the company operates

• Introducing the Efficacy Framework as a tool to support innovation / entrepreneurship in education

• Recommendations around the Efficacy Framework and its applicability to the Portuguese education system

• Identifying where efficacy can be embedded in your work

1

2

3

4

Watch out for this icon – it signals an activity!


An Introduction to the session…This session aims at evaluating how analytical tools, such as the Pearson efficacy framework, could enhance already established innovation support models, structures and processes. The session will provide an introduction into the Pearson efficacy framework to subsequently open the floor to a discussion on its applicability within the Portuguese higher and adult education context.

Pearson’s Efficacy Framework will be tested as a [e.g. stand-alone] means to support the stakeholders to innovate in TEL / education

Key objectives

For attendees the session would provide the opportunity:

1. To acquaint yourself with the efficacy framework as a tool to engender learning-focused discussions when assessing and evaluating prospective innovations or its use in entrepreneurship activities

2. To examine the rigour of the framework, suggests improvements based on academic research, and assess the applicability of it to the local context


The Efficacy Framework

Discussion: Efficacy as a tool

Exercise

Key takeaways and useful resources

The path to Efficacy: why?

• As the world’s leading learning company, we feel we have a responsibility and an opportunity to help people make progress in their lives through learning

• We have aligned our activities around the principle of Efficacy to achieve this


Pearson’s definition of efficacy

efficacy(dictionary definition)• ability to produce the intended

result

efficiency(dictionary definition)• achieve maximum productivity

with minimum wasted effort

16

Put simply…

it’s all about products that improve results and measurable outcomes for learners.

Efficacy (Pearson’s definition)• a measureable impact on improving someone’s

life through learning

Sessão 1: Conceitos e modelos l April 2014

Why now?

• There is a shared understanding that high-quality education drives personal, economic and societal growth

• Governments, individuals, employers and institutions recognise the need to deliver high-quality learning

• New technology makes it increasingly possible to see what works and what doesn’t in helping learners to achieve their goals


An Efficacy Framework: predicting the likelihood of impacting learner outcomes

Four criteria:

1. What learner outcomes are we trying to achieve?

2. What evidence do we have to believe it is possible to achieve these outcomes?

3. What plans are in place to build and deploy a solution that will impact these outcomes?

4. What capacity exists to achieve these outcomes?


The Efficacy Framework has already been examined as a tool to support innovation

• At Online Educa Berlin last year (OEB), Pearson partnered with the European Learning Industry Group (ELIG), to deliver an interactive learnshop

• This involved applying the efficacy framework to selected case studies that demonstrated innovations to support technology-enhanced learning (TEL)

Excerpt from Online Educa Berlin


The Efficacy FrameworkCriteria area Rating Rationale summary

• Action plan

• Governance

• Monitoring and reporting

• Internal capacity and culture

• User capacity and culture

• Stakeholder relationships

Outcomes

• Intended outcomes

• Overall design

• Value for money

• Comprehensiveness of evidence

• Quality of evidence

• Application of evidence

Evidence

Planning and implementation

Capacity to deliver

Efficacy

KeyGreen: Requires small number of minor actions. Amber/green: Requires some actions (some urgent and some-non urgent).Amber/red: Requires large number of urgent actions.Red: Highly problematic requiring substantial number of urgent actions.

An Efficacy Framework: an explanation of ratings

Good – requires slight refinement, but on track

Mixed – some aspects require attention, some solid

Problematic – requires substantial attention, some require urgent rectification

Off-track – requires urgent action and problem solving

Ratings are not grades on performance

Ratings prompt discussions that lead to actions

Ratings prioritise and suggest timeline


Efficacy Framework: Evidence - Why should anyone believe us?

Framework Section

Evidence

Comprehensiveness of evidence

Ask yourself ∙ How well do we understand what our user needs and values?

∙ Is the vision for the innovation supported by research (internal or

external)?

∙ Are we leveraging proven approaches from other innovations?

Quality of evidence

Ask yourself ∙ How rigorous is our evidence?

∙ Is the rigour appropriate for the innovation?

∙ How recent and relevant is the research?

Application of evidence

Ask yourself ∙ How evidence-based is the innovation design?

∙ Has the design been tested?

∙ Does evidence demonstrate that the innovation can be replicated

globally?


Rating Rationale


?Project 1

• Strong set of academic evidence and expertise underpinning the innovation.• Comprehensive teacher focus groups across markets and regions, focusing on the right questions (usability,

price point etc); some concerns about scope of potential customers canvassed (see below). • Traditional competitors are tracked, but not non-traditional competitors who offer tests.

Quality of evidence

?Project 2

• There is a good mix of quantitative and qualitative evidence as well as unbiased samples from the survey. Nonetheless, a large amount of the available evidence is based on the previous innovation (before Sept 2012 enhancement) and, therefore, is not fully applicable to the current innovation. Also, there is little documented evidence coming from the students as to date there has been more focus on teacher rather than student outcomes.

Effective use of evidence

?Project 3

• The external evidence that has been collated is not known or accessible to all members of the team. There may be additional evidence within the business that could be exploited. The use of [this capability] in innovation design is not yet articulated and it is essential that any major decisions should be underpinned by research. Pilot products must be timed so information can feed back into the design [of this capability)

Warm-up (5 mins): Rate the evidence for Projects 1-3

Exercise: Evidence

• Good -- requires small number of minor actions• Mixed – requires some actions (some urgent and some non-urgent)• Problematic -- requires large number of urgent actions• Off track – Highly problematic requiring substantial number of urgent actions

Key


Rating Rationale


Project 1

• Strong set of academic evidence and expertise underpinning the innovation.• Comprehensive teacher focus groups across markets and regions, focusing on the right questions (usability,

price point etc); some concerns about scope of potential customers canvassed (see below). • Traditional competitors are tracked, but not non-traditional competitors who offer tests.

Quality of evidence

Project 2

• There is a good mix of quantitative and qualitative evidence as well as unbiased samples from the survey. Nonetheless, a large amount of the available evidence is based on the previous innovation (before Sept 2012 enhancement) and, therefore, is not fully applicable to the current innovation. Also, there is little documented evidence coming from the students as to date there has been more focus on teacher rather than student outcomes.


Project 3

• The external evidence that has been collated is not known or accessible to all members of the team. There may be additional evidence within the business that could be exploited. The use of [this capability] in innovation design is not yet articulated and it is essential that any major decisions should be underpinned by research. Pilot products must be timed so information can feed back into the design [of this capability)

How did you do?

• Good -- requires small number of minor actions• Mixed – requires some actions (some urgent and some non-urgent)• Problematic -- requires large number of urgent actions• Off track – Highly problematic requiring substantial number of urgent actions

Key

Solutions: Evidence


Framework area Initial review 3- month estimate

6-month estimate

Comment

Outcomes

Intended outcomes After 6 months, outcomes and metrics will be clear and will influence design. Value for money intelligence will be drawn from pilots.

Overall design

Value for money

Strength of evidence base

Comprehensiveness of evidence After 6 months, the plan to develop the forward evidence base will be finalised and initiated. Quality of evidence


Quality of planning and implementation

Action plan After 6 months, long-term plans and reporting structures will be in place and governance agreed. Reporting will be at an early stage.

Governance

Monitoring and reporting

Capacity to deliver

Pearson capacity and culture After 6 months, Capacity issues will be clear, pilots delivered and lessons learned and applied. Stakeholder relationships plans will be launched and gathering feedback.

Customer capacity and culture

Stakeholder relationships

An Efficacy Framework: driving improvement


How can efficacy be applied to your work?

What outcomes are you trying to achieve?

• Set clear efficacy goals• Give your people the incentive to focus on outcomes

What’s the evidence?

• Develop innovations underpinned by research• Build and use effective data systems

What’s the plan?

• Make delivering outcomes a core part of your strategy• Take an open approach• Employ iterative and agile processes

What’s the capacity to deliver?

• Talk to your users and understand their students’ needs• Train your students, teachers or others to use your innovation effectively• Shape the debate with influential stakeholders




Exercise


A Thought Leadership paper that applies the Efficacy Framework in a digital K-12 context…


The Efficacy Framework can be adapted…


Application to innovation:

• To make transformative system improvements we need to know, with precision and clarity, what the learning goals are

• Digital technologies that do not align with what is to be learned will likely not translate into learning enhancement

Key questions - Outcomes


How clearly are the learning outcomes of the innovation defined?

Does this innovation have the ability to scale system–wide?

Are there overall cost savings realised by the innovation?

Does the technology incorporate latest design principles for user

experience?

Is the innovation of sufficient value, demonstrated by learning outcomes,

to justify change?

What is the quality of case model design?

Key questions - Evidence


What is the quality of the assessment platform? Is it adaptive and does it

include an optimal amount of detail?

Does the pedagogy reflect the latest global research, including

and real–world examples?

Is the technology integrated and seamless?

Is it clear how the outcomes will be measured?

How does the learner use the assessment system to monitor and motivate his or her own learning?

Is 24/7 access and learning enabled?

Key questions – Planning & Implementation


Is there a mechanism to ensure the pedagogy is updated?

Is the technology adaptable and highly connective?

Is the assessment system integrated into the pedagogy and learning

curriculum?

Is there a plan for scale based on world–leading change knowledge?

How does the innovation implement in the whole system?

Key questions – Capacity to deliver


Is (Are) the clarity of case outcome(s) shared by all stakeholders?

What is the nature of the implementation support provided?

What support is provided to ensure the technology functions (for all parts

including software, hardware, maintenance)?

What is the quality of the user experience? Is it engaging, efficient

and intuitive?

Is the support based on a culture of learning, risk-taking and learning from

mistakes?

Does the innovation include user training and professional development? Are user

development goals explicit?

How this should be used:


Frameworks are frameworks! Works in progress – noone has the correct answers!




Exercise


1 hour

• Think through the four areas that we talk about when we measure efficacy – outcomes, evidence, planning, and capacity

• Consider these 3 fields of innovation:

MOOCs, Educational Games, Learning Analytics

• Using the Efficacy Framework and the Outcomes and Evidence criteria, examine the innovation potential for these 3 fields of innovation

• We will go through Outcomes and Evidence today

You can apply the Efficacy Framework to support innovation in education…

37 Sessão 2: Ferramentas e técnicas l April 2014

Exercise

• Framing (5 mins)

• Rate for the Outcomes part of the framework and discuss rationale in the group (20 mins)

• Rate for the Evidence part of the framework and discuss rationale in the group (20 mins)

• Discussion on the results and the usefulness of the exercise (15 mins)

1

2

3

4

38 Sessão 2: Ferramentas e técnicas l April 2014



Efficacy in your line of work


On November 15th, Pearson launched a dedicated website:

http://efficacy.pearson.com

outlining the company’s focus on efficacy and commitment to put the learner at the heart of the global strategy.

An interactive version of the efficacy framework also features on the website.

Reference material: Efficacy website


http://efficacy.pearson.com/


What is efficacy?

Pearson as the efficacy company

Efficacy Activities

Tools/ What you can do?

• Definition: A measurable impact on improving someone’s life through learning

• We want to be able to prove that our products and services have a measurable impact

• By 2018 we are committed to demonstrating the progress we have made in improving people’s lives though learning.

• Tool that supports / enhances existing innovation• Tool that can be used in entrepreneurship • Tool that can be used in Portugal (HE market)

• Join the debate on the website• Blog about improving learning outcomes• Complete the Survey Monkey

Recap


Identifying dialogue and collaboration with the wider education community as crucial to

accelerate progress, Pearson has also published two reports:

• The first, Asking More: The Path to Efficacy, sets out the imperative for measuring

and improving learning outcomes worldwide

• The second, The Incomplete Guide to Delivering Learning Outcomes, shares in detail

our new approach to contributing to that goal and the progress it has made so far

Reference material: Efficacy publications


“The future will belong not

to those who focus on the

technology alone but to

those who place it in this

wider context and see it as

one element of a wider

system transformation.”

Reference material: Alive in the Swamp

Quote is from Michael Barber, Chief Academic Advisor, Pearson


https://neo.pearson.com/docs/DOC-263271

You can visit efficacy.pearson.com to:

• Find more information about our approach

• Use the online interactive efficacy tool

• Read up on the role of efficacy in education in two publications: Asking More, and The Incomplete Guide

• Find out more on LinkedIn (Open for Learning) and Twitter (@PearsonPLC)

• Contact: [email protected] if interested parties want to collaborate with us

• Contact:

• [email protected]

How can I find out more?



mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

https://neo.pearson.com/docs/DOC-263271

The Efficacy FrameworkCriteria area Rating Rationale summary

• Action plan

• Governance





Outcomes


• Overall design

• Value for money




Evidence


Capacity to deliver

Efficacy

KeyGreen: Requires small number of minor actions. Amber/green: Requires some actions (some urgent and some-non urgent).Amber/red: Requires large number of urgent actions.Red: Highly problematic requiring substantial number of urgent actions.

Efficacy Framework: Outcomes

Overall design

• Is the innovation designed in a way that will most effectively help your target group reach their goals?

• Does the design allow you to automatically collect evidence of your progress?

• Have you adapted the design based on feedback from users?

• Could the design be used by others?

Value for money

• Do you understand the benefits of your innovation to your target group, relative to other options?

• Is the cost of the innovation competitive, considering the benefits it would deliver?

Intended outcomes

• Have you identified specific outcomes for your target group?

• Do you have a way to measure the intended outcomes?

• Do you have ambitious and measurable targets in place, and deadlines for achieving them?

• Are your intended outcomes clearly documented and understood by the relevant people within and outside your innovation?

Example of green rating Example of red rating

• All outcomes are specific and clearly documented.

• People within and outside my innovation understand the intended outcomes and are able to communicate them clearly.

• Future targets are ambitious and achievable.

• Outcomes can be regularly measured against set targets.

• Design is superior to other options/competitors with features focused on delivering outcomes.

• Real-time evidence is generated.

• The design can be adapted and developed.

• Others could use this design, and it has been shared with them.

• Feedback/research has allowed me to identify what benefits the innovation needs to deliver to users.

• Feedback and return-on-investment research shows that the cost of the innovation reflects the benefits delivered.

• Outcomes are not documented or specific.

• People within and outside my innovation do not understand the intended outcomes or communicate them in the same way.

• Targets do not exist to measure outcomes against.

• Outcomes are only defined at a high level.

• No feedback from users exists (either formal or informal), and the benefits of using this innovation are unclear to our team and our users.

• Perceptions of value for money and user experience are poor.

• The design does not meet target group expectations and is difficult to use.

• The design does not reflect intended outcomes.

• The design does not allow for the collection of feedback.

• The design is specific to a local situation and cannot be replicated.


Quality of evidence

• Does the evidence you have collected link directly to what you are trying to achieve?

• Is the evidence you have collected unbiased; applicable to your innovation; recent; and does it measure success over a period of time?

• Is the evidence you have collected relevant, representative and where possible at an individual level?


• Is the evidence stored and accessible to relevant people? Is it available in an electronic and searchable format?

• Has the evidence you have collected been analysed to help inform the design of your innovation?

• Has the evidence you have collected been analysed to help inform other decisions about your innovation?


• Do you collect evidence using a range of methods (quantitative, qualitative, internal and external for example)?

• Do you collect evidence for all stages of your innovation (from early conception to design and then to implementation)?

• Do you have evidence from all users of your innovation?


• A wide range of evidence has been collected via internal/external, and quantitative/qualitative methods.

• Evidence relates to all stages of my innovation.

• Evidence exists from all users.

• Evidence collected effectively proves how well we are meeting our objectives.

• Rigorous research methods have been used.

• Evidence relates to the specific and relevant use of the innovation.

• Evidence was gathered over a period of time.

• Of the evidence that does exist it is not linked directly to what I am trying to achieve.

• The evidence that exists is: biased; not from a relevant use of the innovation; out of date.

• The evidence is not representative of how a learner would use this innovation.

• All evidence is readily accessible and searchable.

• The evidence is used regularly to inform the design of my innovation.

• Collected evidence is also used to inform non-design decisions.

• The evidence that exists cannot be accessed quickly via electronic means.

• The design of my innovation has not been changed as the result of evidence.

• Major decisions about my innovation are not underpinned by evidence.

• Evidence is collected via a limited range of methods and does not balance qualitative and quantitative sources.

• Evidence is mainly anecdotal and patchy, and does not take into account the innovation’s lifecycle, features, or users.

Efficacy Framework: Evidence


• Our action plan has not been updated and adapted.

• Where feedback exists, it is delayed.

• Our team is are unaware of issues or fails to act on them.

• Team routines are informal and not focused on monitoring progress.

• Team-members do not know who makes key decisions.

• Roles for people outside the core team are poorly defined.

• New team members are unclear of key processes and do not have documentation to refer to.

Monitoring and reporting• Do you update your plan based on progress, adapt it

where necessary and communicate this with your stakeholders?

• Do you get/have access to real-time feedback from your users?

• Do you identify issues early, discuss these honestly and find solutions?

• Do you have tools and routines in place to monitor progress (such as emails, calls, document-sharing)?


Governance• Do people within and outside your team understand

who is responsible for decision-making regarding your innovation?

• Have you documented who is responsible for the work, and who should be consulted and informed? Do the relevant people understand this?

• Have you identified the key processes required to implement your innovation and are these clearly documented?

Action plan• Do you have a plan in place to achieve your

outcomes, including milestones, actions, responsibilities and timelines?

• Does your plan include short- and long-term priorities.

• Have you identified any potential risks and included actions to mitigate these in your plan?

• Do you regularly update your plan and communicate changes to relevant people/institutions?

• Electronic plan exists with clearly identified steps, responsibilities and deadlines.

• The plan includes short and long-term priorities.

• The plan is regularly updated and all relevant parties are aware of the changes.

• Team-members know who makes decisions, and each member of the team (within and outside my innovation) is clear about their role.

• The processes we have in place are documented and well understood, and new members are fully briefed.

• Data is collected in real-time and analysed to provide feedback.

• Monitoring of the innovation alerts me to issues in real time.

• Tools and routines are in place to identify and solve problems.

• No electronic plan exists.• Plan is informal with actions,

responsibilities and timelines unclear.

• Milestones lack clarity and are either too ambitious or not stretching enough.

• Potential risks have not been formally identified or planned for.

Efficacy Framework: Planning & Implementation


• Our team lacks the appropriate skills and resources to deliver the desired outcomes.

• Our culture feels negative, traditional and not focused on outcomes.

Stakeholder relationships

• Have you identified who your key stakeholders are and do you understand their needs and concerns?

• Do you regularly communicate with your stakeholders?

• Is there a culture of partnership and collaboration between your innovation and your stakeholders?

User capacity and culture

• Do the target group understand the objectives and their roles in achieving them?

• Does the innovation reflect the user’s skillset and available resources?

• Do users have the people, skills, time, or resources to achieve their goals?

• Have you put measures in place to build users’ skills?

Internal capacity and culture• Does your innovation have the right number of

people, and people with the right skillsets to enable you to deliver your desired outcomes?

• Does your innovation have a culture focused on delivering outcomes, and is it collaborative and innovative?

• Do leaders within your innovation support your work and are there opportunities to work with others across the innovation?


• Team has right number of people with appropriate skillset and experience.

• Culture is focused on delivering outcomes and is collaborative and innovative.

• Team has appropriate budget.

• The target group understand the objectives and their roles.

• The innovation takes the user’s skillset into account and there are mechanisms in place to build skills.

• Users have the appropriate resources to achieve their goals.

• We meet with stakeholders frequently, and have formal and informal conversations.

• Conversations with stakeholders have led to a culture of trust and partnership over a sustained period of time.

• The target group and existing users are not aware of what the innovation should help them to achieve and what they need to do to get there.

• The innovation is ill-suited to the user and attempts to build users’ skills are ineffective.

• Users do not have the resources and skills to meet their goals.

• The team and stakeholders have uncertain relationships.

• Miscommunication occurs frequently and solving problems in a joint fashion is difficult.

Efficacy Framework: Capacity to deliver


Contact: [email protected]

Muito obrigado pela sua atenção!

Appendix

In small groups of 2-3, evaluate the following matrices aligned to your innovations, and discuss where and how efficacy can be embedded?

• What are the advantages of embedding efficacy into the common innovation design processes?

• What are the challenges of embedding efficacy into the common innovation design processes?

• What questions do you have about the integration of the two?

Self-evaluation exercise:



Criteria area Rating Rationale Summary Actions

• Action plan

• Governance





Outcomes


• Overall design

• Value for money




Evidence


Capacity to deliver


Self-evaluation: Outcomes


Outcomes

Does the design of the innovation fit their culture in a way that will eventually impact student achievement?

Can the user achieve the same goals by investing in alternative innovation for lesser investment?

What are we trying to achieve?

What is the vision for the outcomes the user of the innovation wants to see?

What is the end impact on learning from the innovation?

Intended Outcomes

Overall Design

Value for Money


Self-evaluation: Evidence


Evidence

What is different about the proposed innovation than an existing or competing innovation?

Do we have a case study of another innovation with similar characteristics to highlight the evidence of our innovation?

Why do we believe we can achieve?

How consistent is the evidence and is it quantitatively validated?

Comprehensiveness of Evidence

Quality of Evidence

Application of Evidence


Self-evaluation: Planning


Planning

Who are the individuals responsible for guiding, monitoring and revising implementation once adopted?

What routines or protocols will be used to gather feedback, ensure quality of implementation, and report on success as well as areas of need?

How would we achieve it?

Who is responsible for running point on the implementation, creating the roll-out plan (including timeline and metrics for success)?

Action Plan

Governance

Monitoring and reporting


Self-evaluation: Capacity


Capacity

What have we communicated to the user of the innovation regarding what resources are needed and what has the user agreed to allocate?

What are the potential risks, the commonly agreed upon plans to mitigate, and our mutual willingness and trust to re-evaluate what actions are necessary to achieve the desire outcomes?

Do we have the capacity to deliver?

Do I have the right people, resources, and teams to fit and fully support the innovation?

Internal capacity and culture

User capacity and culture

Relationships with other stakeholders
