Building a Culture of Innovation in Higher Education

Created in partnership between &
Building a Culture of Innovation
in Higher Education:
Design & Practice for Leaders
Emerging Lessons and a New Tool
April 2015
Structure
& Process
Resource
Allocation
Capacity
Leadership
Communication Learning
Agenda
Policy
Environment

“The greatest thing in this world
is not so much where we stand
as in what direction we are moving.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Poet, Playwright and Novelist

Introduction
Why Focus on Higher Ed?
What We Learned
What’s Innovation & Culture All About?
Putting it Together: “Culture of Innovation”
Why Education Innovation Can Be Difficult
Building Culture Within a Shifting Landscape
Organization as the Unit of Change
Factors Driving Innovation Culture
A New Tool for Higher Education Leaders
How to Use This Tool
Defining Key Terms
Innovation Scorecard
Tool: Assessing Culture of Innovation
Suggested Action Steps
Concluding Thoughts
Who We Are
About the Authors
Acknowledgements
Consulted Works
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
52
53
54
55
57
14
15
18
20
50
Contents
2
The Learning
Accelerator
By Bryan Setser and Holly Morris
Significant contributions by Nicole Falcone
Designs by Catherine Lange

3
2Revolutions, in partnership with The Learning
Accelerator, released a publication in 2014:
So You Think You Want to Innovate? Emerging
Lessons and a New Tool for State and District
Leaders Working to Build a Culture of Innovation.
The publication provided an analysis of what
innovation culture means within an education
context; described why it's essential that we all
get better at building it; introduced a new
framework that defines the factors that influence a
robust and healthy culture of innovation; and
shared a self-assessment tool that educational
leaders can use on their path to building
innovation culture. This work builds on that effort
and methodology, but focuses, instead, on the
higher education landscape.
Now more than ever we have to fulfill our promise
to provide a viable path for young people from
college to the workforce that equips them with the
intellectual, emotional and experiential
preparation necessary to face, tackle and solve
complex social problems. Transformative
solutions to the challenges before us are within
sight, if we cultivate our human capital to respond
thoughtfully and courageously. To prepare today’s
students to meet our most pressing challenges,
we need to build the future of higher
education...now.
This report and toolkit is meant for universities,
colleges, community colleges, not-for-profits and
organizations that serve the higher education
landscape who want to do this work; who want to
reimagine their vision of higher education.
Rethinking something, tinkering with it, breaking it
apart and starting over, all requires an innovator’s
mindset. But how can higher education
institutions cultivate that? And who is already
doing work in this area to make it happen? That’s
what this report works to uncover and share.
To do this next round of research and analysis,
2Revolutions partnered with EDUCAUSE’s Next
Generation Learning Challenges (NGLC). For the
past five years, NGLC has accelerated
educational innovation by encouraging institutions
to strategically and creatively apply technology to
dramatically improve college readiness and
completion in the United States. Providing
investment capital to expand the use of proven
and emerging learning technologies, collecting
and sharing evidence of what works and fostering
a community of innovators and adopters, NGLC
has stimulated the development of a variety of
tools, solutions and institutional transformations
that are poised to significantly improve the quality
of learning experiences in the United States.
Because many potentially breakthrough solutions
are being developed and tested by educators,
institutions, technologists and entrepreneurs, too
often they operate with little access to each other
or to opportunities to disseminate their
innovations. Support is needed to refine and
rigorously test their solutions, to connect with
other like-minded innovators, and to develop
strategies to broaden their reach and impact.
This is the “why” behind our partnership.
Introduction

We all recognize that our economy is changing
rapidly. The forces of globalization are creating
more opportunity and less certainty—punishing
stasis while rewarding creativity, flexibility and
agility. At the same time, shifting labor economics
and advances in mobile technologies are
fundamentally changing how people work.
A growing number of knowledge economy
professionals are taking a more entrepreneurial
approach as they pursue the goals of intellectual
and economic independence and balance in an
unbalanced world.
In addition to the workforce shifts and the
changing economics, the graphic below illustrates
many of the other reasons ‘Why’ higher ed needs
to shift, including moving to a more
competency-based system to create more flexible
options for students.
Many of the models featured in this report
harness these powerful trends and enable
multiple "economic free agents" to take a step in
framing the future of higher education to impact a
labor market revolution.
Why Focus on Higher Ed?
SHIFT
in Higher Ed
Renewal of Higher
Education Act
Accreditation
New Majority in
Student Bodies
Increasing
Cost
Workforce
Development
Competency-based
Education
Assessment
Economy
Leadership
CrisisQuality Assurance
in Non-institutional
Learning
Explosive Growth
ofTechnology
Trends taken from Forbes’ “Top Issues Facing Higher Education In 2014”
4

5
“America as 100 College Students” A Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation graphic:
http://postsecondary.gatesfoundation.org/student-stories/america-as-100-college-students/
Adding to the ‘Why’ higher ed needs to shift, is
the consideration of who you’re serving. The Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation created the infographic
below to illustrate the diversity of higher
education students across the United States.
According to its data, if 100 students were chosen
to represent the population of America’s colleges
and universities, 56 of the students would be
female, and 26 would have children. The majority
of them would be working while in school,
one-fifth with full-time jobs. Thirty-four of the
students would be over 25-years-old. It’s obvious
there’s no one-size-fits-all path to (or through)
college for our future students, which reinforces
the need to think creatively and strategically
about how to use technology to personalize and
strengthen the roadmap markers for everyone. It
also shows clearly why higher ed cannot allow a
very small segment of the market, the 18-22
year-olds often living on-campus, to dominate the
policies and practices.

6
1. Accountability and a return on investment is
becoming more commonplace in higher
education. Breakthrough business models have
gone from “Nice to have,” to essential, as
university and college presidents and
chancellors respond to internal and external
economic pressures.
2. Time matters as much as money.
Competency-based education, accelerated
learning, 24/7 access to content and professors
are ways of responding to the primary need of
the “new traditional” student who needs
flexibility and options with time and money.
Continuing to focus on convenience is a strong
strategy among the innovators studied for this
paper.
3. Technology is exploding, and as New York
Times op-ed columnist Tom Friedman notes,
“We are in the alta vista stage of MOOCS.”
Preserving our humanity and the strengths of
formal education alongside the potential of
technology will be a key balancing act in
designing our collective futures.
4. Talent matters. The ivory tower is showing
signs of erosion, and tenure models are being
rethought and redesigned. As new models
emerge, the role of faculty is being reimagined,
skilled up and parsed out so that the institution’s
top talent is performing at its best and highest
use and ONLY that use. For example, we might
soon see the transition from endowed
professors to an endowed fleet of
1099-contractors, capable of assessing higher
ed credentials and providing as-needed support
to students through mobile and other social
platform technologies.
5. Higher ed needs a modern context makeover.
Students and employers are wrestling with a
critical question—what exactly is a Bachelor of
Arts worth? What does it mean? The new
learner is here for deep, relevant, applicable
learning and a credential with the signaling
strength to reflect it to employers. Higher ed
needs to create a space for that type of learning
to happen and rethink how it’s approaching
demonstration of what students have learned
and are able to do.
What We Learned
Our Methodology
This report builds on our first iteration of work,
which began by reviewing existing literature and
research from both within and outside the
education sector. We discovered a range of
interesting and relevant insights (see Consulted
Works on page 57), which we used as the
jumping off place for our more targeted
explorations. For this piece we spoke with higher
education leaders and faculty; unpacking how
they see innovation in their organizations and
what can better enable it in the future, and
incorporated observations from our work with
higher ed leaders in the field whose institutions
participated in the EDUCAUSE/ NGLC
Breakthrough Models Incubator and the
American Council on Education’s Change and
Innovation Lab.
The resulting framework and tool is our best
attempt to synthesize our learning into a form
that we felt could be useful to higher education
leaders. We are very thankful for the thoughtful
critiques, insights, ideas, and stories our
colleagues shared with us for this piece. We are
emboldened by what the future of learning can
look like for our higher education institutions, and
the impact it will have on our country as a whole.

7
An Innovator’s Way of Being
(What Is It That Innovators Do?)
Grab and apply what they can. Innovators leverage
existing, new, proven or unproven methods or tools to
improve practice, solve persistent problems or create a
completely new offering, service, solution, product or idea.
Do not shy away from choices. Innovators make
important choices and trade-offs throughout their process.
They are inspired by their world and use it. Innovators
identify tools, ideas, strands or practices from other fields
and apply it to a new context.
Try, try and try again. They don’t view innovation as “right
or wrong,” “a failure or success,” instead all approaches
are considered, tested, prototyped and
learned from.
Culture is the water your
organization swims in.
It’s not only the policies and practices
your team creates, but the daily
habits, values and mindset of your
team.
Culture needs to be deliberately
built, nurtured, talked about and
managed over time.
What’s Innovation & Culture All About?
Through our research and conversations with
industry leaders, it became clear to us that the
term “innovation” is overused, under-defined
and often means something different depending
on who you ask. In order to build a culture that
champions and supports innovation, it’s critical
that each organization develops a shared
definition of what innovation means within the
context of its work. (Our definition, which can
serve as a starting point if helpful, is on the
next page.)
Before we get to the definition of a culture of
innovation, though, let’s consider what
innovation and culture mean as things people
do in an organization and a way of being.
And What’s Culture?

8
Innovation + =Culture Culture of
Innovation
The act or process of
building on existing
research, knowledge and
practice through the
introduction or
application of new ideas,
devices or methods to
solve problems or create
opportunities where none
existed before.
The way of thinking,
behaving and working
that exists in an
organization, such as
universities and
community colleges.
Nurturing an environment
that continually
introduces new ideas or
ways of thinking, then
translates them into
action to solve specific
problems or seize new
opportunities.
Putting It Together: “Culture of Innovation”
By merging what we learned about “innovation” and “culture,” we offer this shared definition of
what “culture of innovation” can mean within an educational context. Feel free to use this
definition as a starting point for your own work with your organization.

9
We recognize that the process of moving from a culture of improvement focused on fixing current
problems, to a culture of innovation that builds and tests new solutions, is incredibly challenging.
Why Education Innovation Can Be Difficult
It’s often difficult—in any context—to make
a compelling argument for new approaches
that do not yet have evidence of
effectiveness. Innovation is also a cultural
change: It requires a significant shift in
mindset and approach as you leave behind
the comfort of what is known and head into
new grounds and experiences that haven’t
been traveled. And as this well-known
quote, attributed to Maurice Maeterlinck,
articulates, “At every crossway on the road
that leads to the future, each progressive
spirit is opposed by a thousand men
appointed to guard the past.”
“‘What to do?’ Is the question that so many college
and university presidents struggle with right now. We
seem to be sitting at the heart of a perfect storm where
a lot of things are happening faster than our ability to
predict and strategize. We can respond to this stormy
weather as medieval farmers did to the next day's
weather: by simply waiting to see what arrives and
then taking action, often inadequately. Or we can
recognize that we actually have the tools, the
technology, and the know-how to reinvent U.S. higher
education in ways that will address its current failings.
After all, it was non-profit higher education that created
the tools that the for-profits and the ed-tech startups
are now putting to such good competitive use. Online
education, MOOCs, adaptive learning science,
competency-based education, and most of the
learning content in higher education were all invented
on traditional non-profit campuses.”
- Paul LeBlanc, President of Southern New Hampshire
University
Figure I: Why Innovation Is Hard
Figure II: And Especially Hard in
Higher Education

10
Figure III: Shifting from Improvement to Innovation
FUTURE
NOW
NEXT
IMPROVE
the System
We Have
INNOVATE
the System
We Need
(Incremental =
Diminishing
Returns)
(Cross the
Chasm =
Difficult, but
Promising)
Crisis
Stable
Good
Great
Learn
Prototype (New)
Transform
Department
Transform
College/
University
Experiment (Existing)
Copyright © 2015 2Revolutions
Building Culture Within a Shifting Landscape
As if the dynamic on the previous page was not challenging enough, any efforts to build
innovation culture exist within a broader context of transition. Leaders of higher educational
organizations are obligated to do as much as possible to improve the current system, while
simultaneously building the conditions from which a new system can emerge.

Organization as the Unit of Change
11
The systems and organizations that each of us
work within create “top-down” context for
innovation—through policies, leadership,
resources and procedures. The individuals and
groups that comprise these systems and
organizations simultaneously create a “bottom
up” push; whether that is through educators
who are acting alone, with, or often without,
explicit permission to try new things for the sake
of their learners, or more formalized structures
within an organization.
Each factor of this ecosystem influences, and is
influenced by, the others. Effective leadership is
essential at all levels.
Within this dynamic, we elected to focus initially
on organization as the unit of change because
we believe this is where many key types of
decisions are made that either enable or inhibit
innovation within colleges and universities.
Organizations
(Scale, Impact, Sustainability)
A complex range of organizations comprises
the broader system that either enables or
constrains innovation
(Processes, Rules, Choices, Trade-offs)
A critical unit of change, organizations
can prohibit or promote risk-taking and
the choice to innovate
(Peer Collaboration, “Skunkworks”)
Collaborating innovators, which can be
acting without explicit support from the
host organization and sometimes at the
organization’s behest
(e.g. exploratory committee)
(Brainstorm, Test, Iterate)
Acting alone, often in isolation from other
innovators, and experimenting within their
immediate context (e.g. classroom or department)
Figure IV: Context for Innovation

Culture of Innovation
Factors Driving Innovation Culture
Figure V: Seven Factors Driving Innovation
Based on our research and considering our
working definition for culture of innovation, we
have identified seven factors that we believe
are required to catalyze, enable and sustain an
effective culture of innovation over time.
These factors, illustrated in Figure V, are
dynamic and interactive, working together to
promote or constrain the culture you seek.
Similarly, each of these major factors is
comprised of constituent elements.
Beginning in the next section, we provide
detailed working definitions of each of the
factors and sub-factors reflected in the above
framework, as well as a self-assessment tool
that leaders can use to determine their
organization’s current level of progress in
establishing a culture of innovation.
It is our hope that the tool will provide a new
way for leaders to determine what action steps
to prioritize and how to track their progress
over time.
12
Structure
& Process
Resource
Allocation
Capacity
Leadership
Agenda
Policy
Environment
Catalyze Enable Sustain

A New Tool for Higher Education Leaders
13
Self-assessing Your Organization's Progress in Building a Culture of Innovation
Structure
& Process
Resource
Allocation
Capacity
Leadership
Agenda
Policy
Environment
Permission
Purpose
Vision
Trade-offs
Routine
Humility
Urgency
Time
Transparency
Team
Dollars
Reinforcing
Process
Light
Structure
Habit
Orientation
Aligned
Incentives
Leverage
Enablers &
Remove
Barriers
Clarity
Champion
Framing
Frequency
Engagement
Ability to
Execute
Mindset
Support
Knowledge
& Skills
Testable
Hypotheses
Measuring
Progress
Managing
Change
Rapid
Prototyping

How to Use This Tool
The purpose of this self-assessment tool is to provide
“on-ramps” for leaders of higher educational
organizations and teams to assess where they are on the
path toward building a culture of innovation, and explore
examples and resources from inside the higher
education field and beyond. Before getting started, here
are a few, quick instructions to help orient you to how to
use this tool:
Determine Your Objectives
• There are a number of ways to leverage this tool, so
you should start by being clear about what you’re
hoping to achieve and who will need to participate.
With respect to participation, the tool can be
powerful for groups of any size. One person can
complete it alone and gain benefit; a small group or
team working together might complete it individually
and discuss it together; an entire organization can
complete it, aggregate results and share trends. With
respect to objectives, again, the tool can support
several, ranging from developing individual insights
that can be shared by a single person in various
contexts, to generating organization-wide starting
points for discussion, to forming the basis of a
strategic plan by the leadership team. There is no
right answer, but we encourage you to be as explicit
as possible up front regarding your desired
outcomes and set participation accordingly.
Key Terms in the Tool
• On pages 15-17, we offer starting points for how your
team might think of each of the terms that comprise
the innovation culture framework. We invite you to
adopt them, if helpful, or to modify them in whatever
way(s) you like. If working in a group, we encourage
you to begin by having a discussion among
participating team members to identify where you
might have similar or different definitions at work. It
will be helpful to resolve any major differences before
completing the assessment, as this will make it easier
and more powerful to interpret your data in the end. If
you are reviewing electronically, you can use the
embedded hyperlinks to navigate to specific sections
of interest.
Complete the Self-Assessment
• The tool itself stretches from pages 20-49 and is
separated into discrete sections that correspond to
the seven factors and their sub-topics that drive an
innovation culture.
• For each sub-topic within the seven factors, we
provide a rubric that describes actions and
characteristics that follow four points along a
continuum: from Entering to Emerging to Adapting to
Transforming. Where possible, we have included
examples—both from within and/or outside of the
education sector—that we hope will help you
understand the ideas and determine where your
organization fits in.
• After reading the descriptions, use the Innovation
Scorecard to mark where your organization is on the
continuum. (Some pages of the tool also include
space for additional notes and reflections.)
• As you work through the tool, set time limits for each
section to ensure you’re not overthinking your
answers. The goal is to provide a look into where you
are on the continuum of building an innovation
culture, so being as honest and authentic with your
self-evaluation as possible will render the best
results.
Identify Action Steps
• Depending on whether you are completing the tool
individually or as part of a group, a great first step is
to analyze and discuss results with your colleagues.
On page 50, we offer additional suggestions for
potential next steps.
Innovation Scorecard:
On pages 18-19, we share a simple
scorecard that can be used to capture
data as you move through the tool.
Learn from compelling research, thought leaders
and experiences of others in the field.
Apply these tools to help you design and
sustain your culture of innovation.
View inspiring videos and virtual tours related
to culture of innovation.
14
Look for these icons to help guide you through the examples
found in the tool:

Leadership
You must first recognize and define the problem(s) to be solved and the need to innovate toward
radically better solutions for students and families.
The work should be imbued with a clear sense of purpose and strategic intent. It’s the answer to
the “so what?” questions that often arise in the context of innovation work.
The clear, explicit directive to others on the team to try new approaches and embrace the learning
that comes with failure. To be meaningful, permission has to be accompanied by rewards for
taking risks and bringing forth new learning, but it also requires that team members are given the
freedom to fail as they design and test new ideas and ways of thinking.
Because it’s unfamiliar, team members often need to develop “habits of mind” (i.e., rhythm,
schedule) to enable innovation. Setting a cycle or schedule for your efforts helps make innovation
practices routine and embeds into the culture quickly.
If you are to make tangible progress, you must approach the work with an incredible sense of
urgency—set aggressive milestones and deadlines.
Innovation often forces hard choices, especially around quality—our first efforts aren’t always the
best and this is a real and valid concern in higher ed. Understanding up front what your
institution’s limits are around core values is important, as the choices often put them in
competition with each other. Prepare to make hard choices and understand that these choices
may come at the expense of something else that is deeply valued.
This is complex work, so it is wise to remain humble about what is known, not known and not yet
knowable.
Communication
Clarity
Framing
Vision
Purpose
Permission
Routine
Urgency
Trade-offs
Humility
Leaders should strive to establish clear definitions, objectives and desired outcomes for
innovation, so the targets are evident to all team members.
Effective communication is not just explaining and describing the goals of innovation, but also
framing the need for it and how it builds on the experiments and work of the past.
Defining Key Terms
15
Each of the seven factors that comprise a culture
of innovation are made up of a series of
subfactors. Explore each working definition below.
Structure
& Process
Resource
Allocation
Capacity
Leadership
Communication
Learning
Agenda
Policy
Environment

Champion
Engagement
Transparency
Frequency
Resource Allocation
Team
Time
Dollars
Investing in your team’s capacity to take on and execute innovation work is critical to
success—e.g. providing out-of-the-box professional development opportunities or helping them to
cultivate and participate in peer networks.
Organizations need to explicitly dedicate and carve out time in individual team members’
schedules for innovation, as well as secure time across the organization itself.
It is essential that organizations create or set aside dedicated funds to invest in the development
and implementation of innovation. In a perennially resource-constrained environment, where and
how an organization spends scarce resources demonstrates its commitment to shifting the culture.
It is important to advocate—both for specific innovations and for the environment that will make
individuals and groups feel comfortable trying new things, publicly and privately.
You should engage key stakeholders as often and authentically as possible in the process, through
methods like active listening and two-way dialogue. There are ways to structure stakeholder
engagement so that it promotes and helps the innovation process without becoming
unmanageable. Stakeholders generate priceless insights that can’t be secured anywhere else.
By sharing lessons honestly—even when they arise from failures—you model the behavior(s) you
want the system to promote, reward and value.
Share stories of your work early and often to speed up the learning curve for your organization.
Structure & Process
Light
Structures
Reinforcing
Process
Habit
Organizations need light structures—such as design loops, rapid prototyping and short-cycle
innovation opportunities—that are deliberately designed to support and allow for a culture of
ongoing innovation.
Organizations need clear, consistent processes for how innovation is to be promoted, supported
and rewarded. These processes must continually reinforce its commitment to innovation—even
when those efforts do not always lead to clear “wins.”
With structures and processes in place, team members can begin to develop “habits of
mind”—the cadence and routines of regularized innovation.
Communication (continued)
16

Policy Environment
Orientation
Leverage Enablers
& Remove Barriers
Aligned Incentives
University and community college environments can be preventive (constrains innovation),
permissive (allows, but doesn’t support) or enabling (actively promotes, supports and rewards
risk-taking). Indeed a single institution can exhibit all three orientations depending on the
department or degree program. In doing the self-assessment, be sure to be clear about the unit
of analysis. If the institution exhibits two or three of these orientations simultaneously, consider
which one is more prevalent and when.
Leaders should actively seek to create more policies that promote and reward the innovative
behaviors you seek while also stopping the policies that inhibit innovation.
Wherever possible, system-level incentives should be aligned to the outcomes you seek.
Learning Agenda
Testable
Hypotheses
Rapid
Prototyping
Measuring
Progress
Managing
Change
Leaders should be explicit about what tangible problems or barriers innovation will help
overcome and the needs that will be better met and served with those accomplishments.
Trying out the idea on a targeted, small group to allow for nimble, fast feedback, or piloting a
small-scale version of the full concept for a short period of time will allow you to get quick,
actionable feedback and move innovation forward.
Metrics are necessary to track progress. You must have a clear sense of your intended
outcomes and what you’re aiming at, and because innovations are, by definition, different from
the old processes and products, the performance indicators will likely need to be new too.
Effective and sustainable innovation culture typically does not emerge by itself; it needs to be
intentionally pursued and managed over time through a focus on clear metrics and continuous
improvement.
Capacity
Mindset
Knowledge &
Skills
Ability to Execute
Support
Everyone on the team must develop a tolerance for risk, comfort with the fear of failure and a
“growth mindset.”
Team members at every level of the organization must develop the knowledge and skill
competencies to be effective innovators.
Without the essential capacity to execute, the impact(s) from innovation will be limited and
temporary. Successful innovation cultures often involve “distributed leadership,” where all
team members, regardless of organizational level, have power to act in service of the project’s
success and they do so.
Individuals and teams need continual training, support and opportunities to practice their
pursuit of new approaches.
17

Scorecard
Leadership
Total
Leadership
+ + + /7 =
Innovation
entering emerging adapting transforming
Vision
Purpose
Permission
Routine
Urgency
Trade-offs
Humility
Communication
Clarity
Framing
Champion
Engagement
Transparency
Frequency
Resource Allocation
Team
Time
Dollars
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
As you explore this tool, use this scorecard to self-assess where you are
on the path toward building and sustaining a culture of innovation.
Total
Communication
Total
Resource
Allocation
18
+ + + /6 =
+ + + /3 =
1 2 3 4

Structure & Process
Light Structures
Reinforcing Process
Habit
Capacity
Mindset
Knowledge & Skills
Ability to Execute
Support
Policy Environment
Orientation
Leverage Enablers & Remove Barriers
Aligned Incentives
Learning Agenda
Testable Hypotheses
Rapid Prototyping
Measuring Progress
Managing Change
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
Total
Structure &
Process
Total
Capacity
Total
Policy
Environment
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
Total
Learning
Agenda
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
/3 =
/4 =
/3 =
/4 =
19
Scorecard
Innovation
1 2 3 4

Leadership
Vision
entering emerging
vision • purpose • permission • routine • urgency • trade-offs • humility
adapting transforming
You must first recognize and define the problem(s) to be solved and the need to
innovate toward radically better solutions for students and families.
Vision is incomplete and/or
disconnected from
innovation. Organization’s
vision is similar to most
other institutions, speaking
in a relatively typical way to
hopes for student success
or other institutional goals
and does not recognize the
connection between
innovation and achieving
that vision.
An innovation-focused vision
is emerging.
The connection between
recognized needs and
problems to solve is loosely
aligned to and integrated
with the organization’s
broader values and goals.
There is acknowledgement,
though, and recognition that
innovation can play a role in
attaining these goals.
The vision clearly
recognizes the needs and
challenges facing both the
institution and its students,
and leadership has aligned
and integrated that vision
with the organization’s
values and goals. The role
of innovation in supporting
the vision is explicit.
A focus on innovation drives
the vision, which is explicitly
linked to students’ needs. A
majority of participants at all
levels of the organization can
articulate the vision and
innovation’s role within it.
The institution supports
innovation both by
encouraging
experimentation and by
removing obstacles.
Now engaged in its second cohort, the Change and
Innovation Lab launched by the American Council on
Education (ACE) with support from the Lumina Foundation,
brings together teams of senior leaders from colleges and
universities working with education design lab 2Revolutions
to transform retention and degree attainment for their
ﬁrst-generation and nontraditional students. The lab’s vision
is centered on an 18-month process that helps these higher
education institutions design and implement concrete steps
to meet their goals toward helping these learners. The
process culminates with a two-day event in which the
cohorts reconvene to share their visions and reﬁned
prototypes with experts and national funders.
20
"What is the future of the on-campus
experience in the age of online
learning?" That's the question
Stanford2025 set out to explore with
students, faculty and community
members. How could you recreate an
exercise like this to build your vision
for the future? Watch this video to
peek inside the Stanford experience.

Leadership
Purpose
The work should be imbued with a clear sense of purpose and strategic intent. It’s the
answer to the “so what?” questions that often arise in the context of innovation work.
Conversations about
“innovation” are not
connected to an overall
sense of purpose.
No specific strategies are
identified or leveraged to
advance innovation.
There may be a sense of
suspicion about innovation
being “code” for abandoning
long-held values within the
organization.
Conversations about
innovation are exciting and
optimistic, although still not
explicitly connected to the
organization’s purpose.
Some early innovation
strategies are being formed,
but are not yet fully
deployed, or are being tested
ad hoc by individuals in very
small/controlled contexts.
Innovation efforts are
aligned with organizational
purpose. Strategies are
developed and
documented, but learning is
not being fully integrated
across the institution.
Innovation efforts have a
clear, shared sense of
purpose across the
organization.
Strategies are developed,
documented and being
implemented with the learning
benefit being shared across
the organization. These
strategies are explicitly linked
with measures of
effectiveness and impact.
Architects of the strategies
are recognized and rewarded
for their efforts.
Notes How might the Breakthrough models for innovation
be applied to your environment?
21
Explore these initiatives for student
success and competency-based
education created by institutions that
participated in the EDUCAUSE/
NGLC Breakthrough Models
Incubator. Each of these institutions
engaged in challenging new processes
to design student-centered plans to
dramatically increase completion and
created sustainable business models to
support the initiatives. Is your
institution ready to go beyond
business as usual?

Leadership
Permission
The clear, explicit directive to others on the team to try new approaches and embrace the
learning that comes with failure. To be meaningful, permission has to be accompanied by
rewards for taking risks and bringing forth new learning, but it also requires that team
members are given the freedom to fail as they design and test new ideas and ways of thinking.
Innovation is not discussed,
encouraged or celebrated.
New approaches often
suffer critique, with no safe
space to share challenges
or learn from these early
experiences.
Those willing to innovate
attempt new approaches at
their own risk and suffer the
consequences of failure.
Innovation is permitted in
pockets, but not encouraged
or celebrated.
New approaches are
maintained and talked about
by individuals or small
groups, but not spread
across the organization.
Innovators still feel weary
and nervous of “failure,” but
there’s a growing space
within the organization to talk
about these experiences and
learn from them.
Innovation is encouraged
widely across the
organization.
New forums are established
between pockets of
innovators to share ideas.
Designated time and space
is allocated towards these
conversations.
“Failed” experiments may
carry some stigma, but by
and large are viewed as
lessons to learn from rather
than failures alone.
Innovation is explicitly
encouraged, celebrated and
studied across the organization.
All members of the organization
feel empowered to design and
try new approaches.
Attempts and “failures” are
routinely shared and openly
discussed across the
organization. They are not only
tolerated, but are recognized as
a vital part of the innovation
process. Participation in
innovative initiatives is rewarded
in formal processes of the
institution like tenure and
promotion.
In 2014, East Carolina University’s (ECU) education department had seen a 14% drop in
enrollment numbers for principal leadership degrees, despite North Carolina districts having a
huge need for talented graduates. The department decided to try a new pathway— provide a
MOOC, a free and open online course for credit, for 100 teacher-leaders across the state who
were interested in exploring whether a being a principal was the right step for them. The
course, designed by professors and leaders in the education department, offered synchronous
and asynchronous learning opportunities with experts; provided a virtual session with a North
Carolina principal of the year; and gave participants the chance to “test-drive” the experience of
a principal. “Higher ed is facing a new problem, it is called accountability,” says Art Rouse, chair
of the department of educational leadership at ECU. “We’ve got to think differently if we want
to stay innovative and connected to the customer.” Since the launch of the MOOC, the
university has had 100% spike in pre-qualiﬁed candidates to its graduate programs for 2015.
22

Leadership
Routine
Because it’s unfamiliar, team members often need to develop “habits of mind” (i.e.,
rhythm, schedule) to enable innovation. Setting a cycle or schedule for your efforts helps
make innovation practices routine and embeds into the culture quickly.
Little or no routine exists;
innovation is random and
sporadic, if it happens at all.
Pockets of individuals and
teams are beginning to
develop innovation routines,
usually connected to the
timetable of whatever they
are currently focused on, but
there is not a wider
understanding of the benefits
of establishing routine
around innovation beyond
the project.
Teams are disciplined about
their project’s timetable and
they are in the habit of
sharing and iterating
routinely. There is also a
sense of appreciation
emerging overall about the
benefits of routine sharing
with colleagues across the
organization to enable
collaboration and learning.
Teams expect to innovate
continually and have
developed clear, shared
routines for doing so, which
are continually iterated upon
and improved, as needed.
Collaboration and learning
are anticipated and
expected at regular intervals.
Tools for making time for innovation. In 2014, the Competency Based Education Network
(C-BEN) was launched as an initial cohort of 18 college
and university institutions and two public systems
serving 42 campuses. The network of higher education
organizations participate in research and development
for what it takes to advance high-quality competency
education to support and serve students from all
backgrounds—and help answer questions as to its
effectiveness and scale. “Experimental sites will allow
institutions and the federal government to engage in
responsible innovation and learn which types of
programs work best for improving student outcomes,”
said Laurie Dodge, co-chairman of C-BEN and vice
chancellor of institutional assessment and planning for
Brandman University, in a press release about the newly
launched network. We’re eager to track its progress.
23

Leadership
Urgency If you are to make tangible progress, you must approach the work with an incredible
sense of urgency—set aggressive milestones and deadlines.
Innovation is viewed as an
“add-on” and is not
prioritized by leadership.
Innovation is prioritized in
rhetoric, but not in actions.
Leaders prioritize
innovation, recognize it can
come from anywhere inside
or outside the organization
and follow words with
tangible actions.
Leaders not only explicitly
prioritize innovation, but they
establish clear expectations
and timelines as the basis
for making organizational
progress, which include
rapid prototyping as a part
of those expectations.
24
Notes What would make your team or organization see innovation as an
urgent activity? Success of competitive institutions? Recognition of
innovation from outsiders? Brainstorm ﬁve tangible ways you can
build urgency for innovation in your organization.

Leadership
Trade-offs
Innovation often forces hard choices, especially around quality—our first efforts aren’t always
the best and this is a real and valid concern in higher ed. Understanding up front what your
institution’s limits are around core values is important, as the choices often put them in
competition with each other. Prepare to make hard choices and understand that these choices
may come at the expense of something else that is deeply valued.
Lack of awareness or
acknowledgement of the
trade-offs and choices
needed to invest time and
resources in innovation, or a
default assumption that
innovation is less important
than all other competing
values.
Leaders acknowledge that
innovation might require
difficult trade-offs, but it is
given low priority and
minimal resources.
Innovation is considered
important and leadership is
willing to make trade-offs,
and has already begun to
do so, in order to support
innovation.
Innovation is frequently
prioritized in
decision-making because
it is a strong organizational
value. Choices are
transparently made and
communicated across the
organization—explicitly
sharing the rationale for
the trade-offs that make
ongoing innovation
possible.
Pat Sellers, vice president of strategic partnerships at
Davidson College, understands that in all decisions
and partnerships there comes trade-offs. In his
position at the college, Sellers leads Davidson Next, an
initiative that aims to supplement AP instruction with
online modules designed for in-class, blended
instruction. To do this work, Davidson is partnering
with a slew of organizations, including the Arnold
Foundation, the College Board, edX, 2Revolutions and
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School system.
“With all of these partners, trade offs on politics,
funding, design, and culture are a critical component
of the choices we make,” says Sellers. “To borrow from
Stephen Covey’s work, though, it is all about seeking to
understand ﬁrst, before asking to be understood. In
practice that means making sure we have a practice of
listening closely and open communication across all
partners, with an end-goal of co-creating a vision of
what innovation look like in this new space.”
Explore decision-making tools to help
with this work, such as brainstorming,
cause and effect and SMART matrices,
from the American Society
for Quality (ASQ).
25

Leadership
Humility This is complex work, so it is wise to remain humble about what is known, not known and
not yet knowable.
The complexity of the work
is not acknowledged and
core leadership does not
feel safe or able to address
tensions within the work.
Leaders and early innovators
begin to transparently share
knowledge and lack of
knowledge with colleagues,
but the organization as a
whole is not yet comfortable
with the ambiguity that an
innovation-focus typically
requires.
The rhetoric of leadership
communicates comfort with
ambiguity, and most of the
time actions match.
Leadership also encourages
others to feel safe sharing
learning and uncertainty
openly.
Leadership transparently
shares available knowledge
and lack of knowledge both
vertically and horizontally
Multiple explicit channels
and pathways exist across
the organization for
conversations around the
gains made, what has been
learned, what is not yet
known or knowable and
what work still needs to be
done.
Notes
26
Humility requires empathy. Get started by sketching an empathy map using the
process from Stanford University’s d.school to better understand the point of view of
the people for whom you are designing change.

Communication
Clarity
clarity • framing • champion • engagement • transparency • frequency
Leaders should strive to establish clear definitions, objectives and desired outcomes for
innovation, so the targets are evident to all team members.
Clear, shared definitions,
objectives and outcomes
for innovation do not yet
exist, and there is little to no
recognition of the need for
these definitions.
The organization is in the
process of trying to
understand and develop
early definitions, including
surveying those adopted by
other organizations.
Initial definitions have been
established and
organization, but there is
room for growth in the
definitions’ use.
All leaders, teams and
individuals refer to shared
definitions, objectives and
outcomes. Strategies are in
place to monitor adherence
to shared definitions, such
as consistent use in
conversation and
publications, while also
explicitly supporting efforts
to modify definitions over
time based on new learning.
Richland College of the Dallas County Community
College System, a National Malcolm Baldrige Award
Winner, uses other industries as models of what
they’d like to achieve amidst their own organization
and culture. This includes: sustainable architecture,
digital dashboards for decision-making, a
“Starbucks culture” at every student community
site, diversity in management and a Southwest
Airline-like method for hiring and supporting
employees. By providing clarity on what they’d like
to emulate in other sectors, the college is better able
to articulate the experience they are working to
create for their customers—the students.
27

Communication
Framing
Effective communication is not just explaining and describing the goals of innovation, but also
framing the need for it and how it builds on the experiments and work of the past.
Because the role of
innovation within the
organization is not yet
explicitly valued by the
organization, little or no
effort is invested in framing
innovation’s role in helping
the organization meet needs
and solve problems.
Some individual leaders are
beginning to communicate
the need for, and role of,
innovation, but these
conversations are sporadic,
inconsistent and not part of
an aligned communications
strategy.
Organizational leaders are
communicating the need
for, and role of, innovation
with increasing clarity and
consistency.
The role of innovation within
the organizational life cycle
is framed in consistent and
compelling ways through the
lens of the organization’s
past, present and future.
Deep understanding exists
across all stakeholders of
where and how “innovation”
fits within the organizational
narrative.
At Central Piedmont Community College
in Charlotte, North Carolina,
departments and services came together
for a movie event with a twist. Each
group within the college chose a movie to
frame their mission, and illustrate their
role on campus and how they serve
students. The event was called “Big
Picture,” attended by students and
faculty, and is one avenue the community
college is working to bridge the gap
between departments and provide a
holistic approach to education and
communicating the college’s work.
In Georgia, the University System is
crowd-sourcing the architecture for
the future of higher education learning
in a MOOC called “Invent the Beyond,”
facilitated by university faculty. The
purpose of the course? Celebrate and
design what education can and should
look like in 2030 while taking into
consideration the various
stakeholders: students, institutions
and faculty. Explore the course and see
how it frames your view of the future
of higher ed.
28
CapacityCommunication
Policy
Environment

Communication
Champion
It is important to advocate—both for specific innovations and for the environment that will
make individuals and groups feel comfortable trying new things, publicly and privately.
Organizational leaders are
not advocating for the role
of innovation, and they
respond to the suggestions
of potential innovators in
ways that curb additional
risk-taking from others.
Some individual
organizational leaders
explicitly champion the role
of innovation and risk-taking,
but this is not an
organizational value and
tends to be driven by
individual preferences.
Multiple leaders across the
organization are
collaborating to create
innovation-friendly
environments, with
increasing alignment and
consistency across the
organization.
Leaders are beginning to
identify and engage with
their colleagues,
championing the work they
are doing.
Leaders at multiple levels
of the organization are
held accountable for
creating environments
that promote innovation,
risk-taking and new
approaches.
Leaders are consistently
championing innovation
with all key internal and
external stakeholders.
The leaders at Educate Texas, a public-private partnership
focused on improving public education, understand well the
importance of championing new innovations. One example
is its work to create a robust early college movement, aimed
at saving young people and families money on college
tuition and providing high return on investment. “We want
to help build the work force of the future, and that means
kids who have college skills, work skills and the ability to be
good citizens,” says President John Fitzpatrick.
29
Policy
Environment
Watch how Georgia State
University champions its
method for using a
personalized model of
advisory and data to boost
graduation rates.

Communication
Engagement
You should engage key stakeholders as often and authentically as possible in the
process, through methods like active listening and two-way dialogue. There are ways to
structure stakeholder engagement so that it promotes and helps the innovation process
without becoming unmanageable. Stakeholders generate priceless insights that can’t be
secured anywhere else.
Early internal innovators feel
isolated, and external
innovators are excluded
almost entirely from
discussions.
Organizational leadership
recognizes and is taking
steps to include ever-wider
rings of internal
organizational stakeholders
in the conversation around
innovation. Some efforts to
include key external
stakeholders are taking hold.
Internal innovators of the
organization feel
comfortable initiating and
engaging others in the
conversation about change
and innovation. Efforts to
engage external partners in
two-way dialogue and
active listening are
becoming more explicit,
robust and organized.
Current and potential
innovators—both within and
outside the organization—
feel valued, listened to and
are consistently included in
the conversations and work.
Everyone in the organization
knows that initiating
conversations around
innovation is acceptable and
welcome.
Winston-Salem State
Chancellor Elwood Robinson is
a “Social Media Chancellor” —
from selﬁes with student bodies,
to tagging accomplishments, to
promoting alumni, his twitter
feed is worth a follow.
“Sure social media has to be
managed, but you can’t meet
students where they are unless
you go to where they share,
collaborate, and promote things
that are important to them in
their lives. Social media allows
me to get to know them, and for
them to engage with their
Chancellor. Not to mention they
provide me with a lot of great
ideas that help our
university succeed”
Explore IDEO’s compilation of digital tools for design
research to explore a range of methods for engaging your
community around change—and ﬁguring out where your
communication is not working as effectively.
30
Policy
Environment

Communication
Transparency
By sharing lessons honestly—even when they arise from failures—you model the
behavior(s) you want the system to promote, reward and value.
Stories of lessons learned
remain private. No space
exists for these
conversations and any
attempts by innovators
regarded as mistakes might
be ignored, covered up or
even penalized. Given the
environment, there is a lack
of willingness to share
across team members or
openly with other
stakeholders.
Some (but not all) leaders
embrace a transparent
approach to learning and
believe failure is an inherent
component of learning.
However, because of the
inconsistency in viewpoints,
many within the organization
may be confused about
when and whether
transparency is, in fact,
valued. And although
intention to share might exist,
it’s often inconsistent and in
one-off instances or small
groups.
Leaders embrace
transparent learning with
increasing consistency. The
value of, and desire to move
toward, increasing
transparency is
organization and
increasingly with external
stakeholders.
The organization not only
explicitly values
transparency around
lessons learned, but it has
systems in place to
regularly communicate
lessons learned. What
could be considered
failures and “mistakes”
are viewed as building
blocks for addressing
future needs. There is
recognition, both within
and outside the
organization, for the
messiness of innovation
and a willingness to keep
talking about it.
31
Policy
Environment
“The ﬁnancial crisis is a stark reminder that
transparency and disclosure are essential
in today's marketplace.”
- United States Senator Jack Reed
All industries wrestle with failure and
how to approach and share it broadly.
Watch this TED talk by physician
Brian Goldman on “medicine's culture
of denial” and its impact.

Communication
Frequency
Share stories of your work early and often to speed up the learning
curve for your organization.
Stories of lessons learned
remain private. No space
exists for these
conversations.
Intention to share stories may
exist, but it’s often
inconsistent and in one-off
instances or small groups.
Some leaders and teams of
individuals consistently
share stories and lessons
learned, but this has not yet
risen to an organizational
value in practice.
Lessons are regularly shared
across all leaders and
stakeholder groups. There
are specific strategies or
mechanisms in place to
promote regular sharing.
32
Notes What structures does your organization have
in place to enable regular storytelling?
Communication

Resource Allocation
Team
team • time • dollars
Investing in your team’s capacity to take on and execute innovation work is critical to success
—e.g. providing out-of-the-box professional development opportunities or helping them to
cultivate and participate in peer networks.
Little or no investment is
made in internal
organizational capacity to
innovate.
Some investment in
leadership capacity to
support innovation is made,
but it is inconsistent,
episodic and not followed by
adequate investment in team
capacity.
Investment is made by the
organization to support
capacity for innovation at
certain levels or
departments more
consistently.
The organization
consistently invests in its
capacity to innovate and
communicates this value
across the organization as a
way to signal its importance.
Leaders across the
organization are held
formally accountable to
develop their own teams’
capacity to innovate.
Cambridge College President Deborah
Jackson offers ﬁnancial incentives to her
faculty teams to encourage the design of
new models for business, education and
organizational change at the college.
Winning prototypes are pitched to the
executive team and the best of the bunch
are provided $1,500 to further develop
their prototypes to improve the college’s
offerings. “To create a culture of
innovation, it does require vision, skills,
resources and a plan,” says Jackson, “but
I think you have to also incentivize
people to act. By funding our prototype
cycles, our faculty know we are serious
about prototyping tomorrow.”
33
Notes What roles does your organization need to
support innovation? Is this consistent with
how resources are allocated?

Resource Allocation
Time Organizations need to explicitly dedicate and carve out time in individual team members’
schedules for innovation, as well as secure time across the organization itself.
Little or no time is created in
the schedule to support an
investment in innovation or
experimentation.
Innovation is considered an
“add-on” (i.e., might happen
during professional learning
days or targeted
conversations, but no time
is carved out of the
day-to-day schedule).
Some attempts are made to
create dedicated portions of
key leaders' and team
members' time, but this time
is often deprioritized or
repurposed.
Innovation is still more or less
considered an “add-on” to
the daily responsibilities and
needs of the organization.
Time that has been
dedicated to support an
innovation agenda—both in
dedicated roles and
portions of other team
members’ time—is
protected.
Choices are being made to
deprioritize other legitimate
demands on time in favor of
a continued focus on the
innovation agenda.
Time for innovation is built
explicitly into the schedule
through dedicated roles and
portions of other team
members’ time, and is
consistently honored by all
organizational leaders and
staff.
Required trade-offs to
protect time for innovation
are communicated explicitly
across the organization and
the innovation agenda is
frequently prioritized.
34
Notes Sketch out a few prototypes of what innovation time could look like for
your organization. How could schedules be shifted to support this?

Resource Allocation
Dollars
It is essential that organizations create or set aside dedicated funds to invest in the development and
implementation of innovation. In a perennially resource-constrained environment, where and how an
organization spends scarce resources demonstrates its commitment to shifting the culture.
Even if some rhetoric
around innovation exists,
little or no resources are
provided to support
increased organizational
capacity to innovate.
Some initial resources to
support innovation are
invested, usually in
connection with a particular
project, but are not followed
by consistent or large
enough investment to
maintain a focus on
innovation.
A commitment to support
an innovation agenda
receives a sufficiently large
and consistent investment
apart from a particular
project.
Internal and external
investment in an
innovation agenda
increases over time.
Required trade-offs to
protect resources for
innovation are understood
and clearly communicated
“Kansas State University’s Innovation
Campus in Olathe (greater Kansas City)
was launched by funding from a county
sales tax increase,” says Prema Arasu,
CEO and vice provost. “With a mandate
for regional growth and economic
development, we are working closely
with business, government and
community to forge new integrated
approaches in learning and discovery.
Investing in a design-thinker in
residence is one of many ways that we
are approaching educational
innovation.”
“Each year we dedicate priority
resources to our campus-wide leadership
academy,” says Chancellor Nicholas
Zeppos at Vanderbilt University. “I love
seeing the head of thorasic surgery
working on a university challenge with
our head of maintenance. The more you
invest in leadership across your teams,
the more great solutions you gain to
common problems."
35

Structure & Process
Light Structures
Organizations need light structures—such as design loops, rapid prototyping and
short-cycle innovation opportunities—that are deliberately designed to support and allow
for a culture of ongoing innovation.
No organizational
structures—either formal or
informal—exist to support
innovation.
Some informal organizational
structures are emerging to
support early innovators
(e.g., communication, habits
and routines).
No formal organizational
structures exist.
More robust informal
structures have informed
the development and
implementation of
formalized organizational
structures to support
innovation. However, these
formal structures may not
yet be well organized or
consistently communicated
Informal structures continue
to emerge and inform
ongoing modifications to
formal organizational
structures.
Formal organizational
structures have been
designed, implemented and
communicated consistently
across the organization to
support innovation over
time.
light structures • reinforcing process • habit
There are ranges of light structures your organization can use to promote and cultivate
innovation. One is lean innovation, which as Harvard Business Review author Tom Agan writes,
“Lean innovation embraces a philosophy of not letting perfection get in the way of progress. It
leverages the Pareto principle that 20% of a product’s features (what’s distilled down into the
minimal viable product) will most likely deliver 80% of the beneﬁts sought by customers.”
Adopting a structure of lean innovation that allows for quick decision-making, prototyping and
testing will be a huge shift if you’ve typically made choices after countless hours spent in
meetings. The true magic of a lean structure lies in the learning experience it provides, continues
Agan, so considering how to make that learning explicit will be a critical input.
36

Structure & Process
Reinforcing
Process
Organizations need clear, consistent processes for how innovation is to be promoted,
supported and rewarded. These processes must continually reinforce its commitment to
innovation—even when those efforts do not always lead to clear “wins.”
No organizational processes
exist to support innovation.
Some informal organizational
processes are emerging to
support early innovators, but
they are not clear or
consistent across the
organization.
Some leaders and teams
have established formal
processes to promote and
reward risk-taking, but they
are not organization-wide.
The organization has
established agreed-upon
processes to promote,
support and reward
innovation, which are
communicated clearly and
consistently across the
organization.
Organizational leaders at all
levels are accountable for
adhering to these processes.
High performing higher education
organizations often turn to the
American Society for Quality’s
library for process tools.
Wake Tech Community College in Raleigh, North Carolina
implemented a new process to harness the energy and innovations
of faculty-led initiatives. Called SAIL, for “Succeed, Achieve,
Improve, and Learn,” the college provides a structured, competitive
RFP process that invites employees to collaborate on solutions for
the college’s most difficult challenges related to student learning
and achievement. Through project support and training, SAIL
fosters employee engagement and confidence in developing
comprehensive proposals and implementation plans targeted at
identified college priorities. It includes rigorous peer and expert
review to assure quality, feasibility, and sustainability. In its first
implementation, SAIL guided the competitive selection of Wake
Tech’s Quality Enhancement Plan, and remaining finalists are being
matched with internal and external grants.
37
For institutions where faculty are
assuming new or different roles,
the tenure process should reflect
on not only their skill in the new
roles, but their willingness to
embrace them, learn openly and
continuously improve.

Structure & Process
Habit With structures and processes in place, team members can begin to develop “habits of
mind”— the cadence and routines of regularized innovation.
No habits, patterns or
routines exist on an
organizational level.
Individual leaders and teams
are beginning to develop the
routines of regularized
innovation.
Organizational leadership
explicitly values the creation
and maintenance of needed
habits to support
innovation, but has not yet
implemented consistent
strategies to enable.
Organizational leaders have
explicitly endorsed specific
strategies to promote
desired habits/routines,
while simultaneously
encouraging the ongoing
development of new
methods to support a robust
innovation culture.
To read more on creativity and habit, explore this piece from
Maria Popova’s Brain Pickings which tackles how to “hone
your creative routine and master the pace of productivity” by
documenting how many artists, writers, inventors and
philosophers have done just that.
38

Capacity
Mindset Everyone on the team must develop a tolerance for risk, comfort with the
fear of failure and a “growth mindset.”
Even if they talk about
“innovation,” key leaders
are unwilling to take risks.
This, in turn, discourages
team members from
embracing increased risk
and a growth mindset.
Individual leaders and team
members demonstrate a
growth mindset and
tolerance for risk, but this is
not yet an explicit
organizational value.
The organization explicitly
values a growth mindset
and willingness to take
risks, and regularly
celebrates individuals and
teams who set a good
example for others.
Senior organizational leaders
recognize the importance of
a growth mindset, and
regularly take public risks in
pursuit of bold outcomes.
This willingness to take risks
comes to be recognized and
celebrated as a cultural trait
of the organization.
mindset • knowledge & skills • ability to execute • support
Check out Mindset Works,
co-founded by Carol
Dweck Ph.D., for open, free
tools and information on
building a growth mindset.
39

Capacity
Knowledge &
Skills
Team members at every level of the organization must develop the knowledge and skill
competencies to be effective innovators.
There is little or no
awareness of the range of
new knowledge and skills
that are needed to support
innovation over time.
The organization recognizes
the need to develop new
knowledge and skills to
support innovation and is
doing so in isolated cases,
but has not yet developed an
organized strategy to enable
ongoing growth of all
employees.
developed and
communicated clear
definitions of the
knowledge and skill
competencies individuals
and teams need to
support innovation.
Explicit strategies to
develop these knowledge
and skill competencies
are in the process of
being developed and
implemented.
As a result of explicit
strategies, professionals
across the organization
demonstrate increased
awareness and mastery of
the knowledge and skill
competencies needed to
support innovation over
time.
Girl Develop It is a non-proﬁt
organization that exists to
provide affordable and
accessible programs to women
who want to learn web and
software development through
mentorship and hands-on
instruction. By linking higher ed
succession planning to more
females equipped with coding
skills, an increase in the IHE’s
talent pipeline is intentional
and also diverse.
40
Notes How are you building knowledge and
skill competencies in your team?

Capacity
Ability to
Execute
Without the essential capacity to execute, the impact(s) from innovation will be limited
and temporary. Successful innovation cultures often involve “distributed leadership,”
where all team members, regardless of organizational level, have power to act in service
of the project’s success and they do so.
The organization has limited
capacity to execute, and
little recognition of the
essential link between
execution and long-term
effectiveness.
The organization values and
is able to attract and retain
leaders with the ability to
execute against an
innovation agenda or has
begun pairing or mentoring
those who have executed
successfully in the past with
innovation-minded people.
However, effectiveness
results largely from individual
strengths, rather than from
an organizational
commitment to developing
needed knowledge/skill
competencies to support
innovation.
The organization
deliberately attracts and
retains innovation-oriented
leaders with capacity to
execute and cultivates
partnerships of top
execute-skilled team
members with
innovate-skilled team
members. (Ideally, it’s
important to seek leaders
who can live in the
“both/and” spaces—who
can execute, innovate and
who want to partner with
others who have strengths
in each arena.) Explicit
organizational strategies are
in place to continually
enhance the developing
skills of leaders.
Senior organizational and
team leaders recognize that
innovation is part of their job
and live in that “both/and”
space.
Individuals who demonstrate
effectiveness enjoy
increased opportunity within
the organization, while those
with limited effectiveness are
provided support and
coaching until other
measures are needed, such
as action planning.
Use a Force Field analysis to
identify the drivers that help
you execute effectively and
those that get in your way.
41

Capacity
Support Individuals and teams need continual training, support and opportunities to
practice their pursuit of new approaches.
No focus exists to support
professional learning or
training to “build new
muscles” to nurture
innovation.
Support structures are
beginning to form, but they
are loose, informal and
inconsistent among teams.
For example, a team member
brings up innovation as a
topic for a “lunch and learn,”
or reports back on an
innovation talk or conference
attended.
Support structures are
becoming formalized at the
level of the full organization.
For example, a certain
amount of professional
development money or
percentage of time is
allocated per person to
pursue innovation-related
development. Budgets to
support learning are
implemented, but not
systematically across the full
organization.
developed, communicated
and invested in clear support
strategies. An explicit
learning budget exists for all
stakeholders to support their
ongoing development
around innovation skills and
knowledge and there’s
innovation time built into
schedules.
Notes What training and support for innovation
does your organization currently provide?
What more could you be doing?
42

Policy Environment
Orientation
University and community college environments can be preventive (constrains innovation),
permissive (allows, but doesn’t support) or enabling (actively promotes, supports and rewards
risk-taking). Indeed a single institution can exhibit all three orientations depending on the
department or degree program. In doing the self-assessment, be sure to be clear about the unit
of analysis. If the institution exhibits two or three of these orientations simultaneously, consider
which one is more prevalent and when.
Existing policy environment
is preventive. Few, if any,
avenues to support
innovation exist.
is transitioning from
preventive to permissive, but
the organization is
constrained by its own
culture and by perceptions of
circumstances outside the
institution (e.g. accreditors)
as being hostile to
innovation. Some helpful
avenues exist to support
innovation (e.g., innovation
“zones”), but they are
isolated and not consistently
available for all system
participants either internally
or externally. Formal policy
infrastructure remains
misaligned.
is transitioning from
permissive to enabling. The
organization is building on
targeted examples of
innovation to develop
system-wide policies,
programs and explicit
incentives to promote and
reward innovation. The
organization is working
collaboratively with outside
stakeholders to transform
the external environment
and correct system
misalignment.
Policy environment is
explicitly enabling; incentive
structures are vertically and
horizontally aligned; and
leaders are regularly pushing
to develop new formal and
informal vehicles to advance
the role of innovation in
transforming outcomes for
students. The organization is
leading and shaping the
conversation with external
stakeholders and
succeeding in creating new
standards, measures and
opportunities for
innovation-related work.
University of Wisconsin is flipping traditional ‘college’ policy and practice on its head to better
meet the new learner, especially working adults who want to receive a college degree, but don’t
have the time or flexibility in their schedules for a full course load. The self-paced
competency-based degree and certificate program gives students the options to “show what
they already know” through assessments; begin learning where they need; and participate as
they can; and receive personalized support. These changes certainly require a shift in mindset,
approach and policy—and the hallmark innovation is the tiered pricing available for students,
plus the option for learners to receive financial aid for assessments and credentials.
orientation • leverage enablers & remove barriers • aligned incentives
43

Policy Environment
Leverage Enablers &
Remove Barriers
Leaders should actively seek to create more policies that promote and
reward the innovative behaviors you seek while also stopping the
policies that inhibit innovation.
Organization and system
leaders are not aware of
what policy changes or
flexibilities could be made
to advance innovation.
Leaders are aware of, but
unwilling or unable to
facilitate, new policies that
would enable increased
innovation.
Leaders are aware of, and
are actively pursuing, new
policies or flexibilities that
would advance
system-wide innovation.
Leaders have successfully
removed barriers to
innovation, either internally,
externally or both, and are
now executing against a
clear, multi-year innovation
policy agenda, with intent to
inform the next iteration of
policy productively with data
and experiential learning.
“The economic urgency around higher education is undeniable: the
price of tuition has soared; student loan debt now exceeds $1 trillion
and is greater than credit card debt; the dollars available from
government sources for colleges are expected to shrink in the years to
come; and the costs for traditional institutions to stay competitive
continue to rise. At the same time, more education does not
necessarily lead to better outcomes. Employers are demanding more
academic credentials for every kind of job yet are at the same time
increasingly vocal about their dissatisfaction with the variance in
quality of degree holders. The signaling effect of a college degree
appears to be an imprecise encapsulation of one’s skills for the
knowledge economy of the times. McKinsey analysts estimate that the
number of skillsets needed in the workforce has increased rapidly
from 178 in September 2009 to 924 in June 2012.”
- Michelle Weise, Hire Education
Mastery, Modularization, and the Workforce Revolution,
Clayton Christensen Institute
44

Policy Environment
Aligned
Incentives
Wherever possible, system-level incentives should be aligned to the outcomes you seek.
Incentive structures are
significantly misaligned,
causing innovation efforts to
work at cross-purposes
with the legitimate
outcomes of the current
system. Leaders remain
largely unaware of this
misalignment.
Incentive structures are still
largely misaligned, but
leaders recognize this and
are in the process of
developing solutions to
address it.
Organization and system
leaders are making steady
progress at achieving more
consistent and explicit
alignment among incentive
structures in ways that
promote and reward
innovation and risk-taking
and are making strides in
aligning with external
stakeholders as well.
All formal and informal
incentive structures are
vertically aligned, and
explicitly communicated to
all stakeholders, in ways that
support the role of
innovation in achieving
breakthrough results for
students. The institution and
outside stakeholders are in
frequent, open and
productive communication
to support mutually-serving
goals around innovation and
student success.
Notes Can you identify examples of
misaligned incentives that hinder
your innovation efforts?
45

Learning Agenda
Testable
Hypotheses
Leaders should be explicit about what tangible problems or barriers innovation will
help overcome and the needs that will be better met and served with those
accomplishments.
The notion of approaching
an innovation agenda as a
series of experiments with
testable hypotheses is
largely unfamiliar.
Leaders and teams are
beginning to view innovation
less as a product and more
as a continual process, with
a few targeted experiments
designed to test specific
ideas over time.
Leaders and teams
understand that innovation
is an ongoing process with
a series of opportunities to
try new approaches and use
data as actionable evidence
to determine what should
be continued, stopped
and/or scaled.
Leaders and teams have a
shared understanding about
the relationship between
innovation and time-bound
programmatic experiments
with testable hypotheses. All
experiments are designed to
yield actionable data not
only on the project at hand,
but on the overall
institutional strategy for
innovation.
The portfolio of various
innovations and experiments
are aligned to accelerate
organizational learning in
ways that transcend any one
innovation.
testable hypotheses • rapid prototyping • measuring progress • managing change
Utah State University is experimenting with a new
program to give students more opportunities for
self-discovery and actualization. The program
allows students to build a personal web of support
based on need, issue or circumstance, and gives
students the opportunity to solve attainment
challenges for themselves via prototyping.
What problems are you trying to solve?
Frog Design works with large-scale user
experience (UX) and convergent collaborations
with organizations like Microsoft and Disney to
create new software applications, mobile
products and connected experiences that blur the
lines between physical and digital, and shape an
era of ubiquitous computing. Long-term
partnerships with organizations like GE and Intel
continue to raise the bar for enterprise, education,
and industrial experiences—see some of their
tools here to test hypothesis in their work.
46

Learning Agenda
Rapid
Prototyping
Trying out the idea on a targeted, small group to allow for nimble, fast feedback, or
piloting a small-scale version of the full concept for a short period of time will allow
you to get quick, actionable feedback and move innovation forward.
47
testable hypotheses • rapid prototyping • measuring progress • managing change
No opportunities to explore,
iterate, design and test
exist. The method of rapid
prototyping is in stark
contrast to the plan-deliver
mindset that exists across
the organization.
Individual team members
have been orientated/
exposed to the methods of
rapid prototyping and begin
to test the approach with
their own project ideas, but
not widespread across the
organization.
Leadership emphasizes the
mindset of prototyping and
provides opportunities for
conversations, iterations to
be tested and debriefed.
Multiple efforts and strategy
across the organization is
looked at through the lens of
prototyping, making for a
nimble organizational model
that reflects the needs of its
stakeholders and allows all
team members the
opportunity to innovate and
test.
Notes Use design thinking to enable rapid prototyping.
What is the problem you are trying to solve?
What are the design parameters: the people involved, the
hypothesis, the enduring questions and the time spent?
Take a video crash course
in design thinking by
Stanford d.School and
learn the ins and outs of
the methodologies and
processes of thinking
like a designer.

Learning Agenda
Measuring
Progress
Metrics are necessary to track progress. You must have a clear sense of your intended
outcomes and what you’re aiming at, and because innovations are, by definition,
different from the old processes and products, the performance indicators will likely need
to be new too.
Few or no metrics are in
place to measure the
effectiveness of any
attempts at innovation.
Some metrics are used to
assess the effectiveness of
various innovations, but they
are typically few, narrow and
determined mid-stream or at
the end of the process.
Multiple, mixed metrics are
used to assess the
effectiveness of each
innovation. These metrics
are determined in advance
of implementation, typically
as part of the design
process.
Multiple, mixed metrics are
associated not only with
each individual
programmatic innovation,
but they can be aggregated
into an organization-wide
strategy that will accelerate
learning and effectiveness.
Measurement plans include
both qualitative and
quantitative measures.
Measurement also
incorporates feedback from
students, stakeholders and
team, which is treated as
actionable data.
testable hypotheses • measuring progress • managing change
Notes
48
How does your organization measure
progress toward your innovation goals?

Learning Agenda
Managing
Change
Effective and sustainable innovation culture typically does not emerge by itself; it needs
to be intentionally pursued and managed over time through a focus on clear metrics
and continuous improvement.
There is no evidence of an
explicit organizational
change management
strategy that includes the
role of innovation or
building culture of
innovation. Even those
individuals in the
organization who typically
handle change
management and excel,
may not be well-versed in
the intersection of their
expertise and innovation.
There is recognition of the
need to actively manage the
organizational change
process, and some
recognition of the potential
for innovation to play an
important role within the
change process.
There is an explicit and
clearly communicated
process that highlights
continual innovation as a
core element.
A comprehensive
management strategy that
integrates the role of
innovation exists and is
managed against
consistently and at all levels
of the organization. There
likewise is recognition of the
ways innovation creates
challenges for an
organization, and an
appreciation for how
well-thought out change
management plans can
support innovation.
testable hypotheses • measuring progress • managing change
49
Explore Radical Ideas for Reinventing College to
see how Stanford d.School reimagines the future of
learning for higher education models by involving
designers in the change process.
As you think about your own change
management process, explore Knoster’s
model of managing complex change,
which includes considering the variables
of vision, consensus, skills, incentives,
resources and action plans.

Suggested Action Steps
We’re always interested in conversation on these
topics; here are a few suggestions for moving
innovation forward at your institution after using
this assessment tool:
Analyze Results
Depending on how the self-assessment tool was
used (i.e., individually, in small or large groups,
across the organization), a great first step is to
analyze and discuss your results. If multiple
individuals completed the assessment, you’ll
want to aggregate this data—which can be
“rolled up” to align with relevant teams within the
organization, as well as the full organization (if
applicable). Analysis can be as limited to
reviewing the full results and seeing what jumps
out, or engaging in more sophisticated data
analysis to identify key themes, trends or
surprises.
Discuss with Colleagues
The opportunity to engage in discussion of
self-assessment results with colleagues is often
one of the most powerful parts of the process.
Typically, because we do not have common
language or context for the discussion of
innovation culture, it can be difficult to organize
these essential discussions. Or they simply do
not occur at all. Team discussions become a
great excuse to start the conversation, as well as
to identify where specific individuals or teams
within the organization might have similar or
competing definitions, priorities or levels of
understanding. To make these discussions
compelling and powerful, set an agenda that has
enough structure to be meaningful, but leaves
room for thoughtful conversation. For example,
take on only one section of the assessment at a
time over a series of meetings.
Target Priorities
Based on your analysis, you should be able to
identify areas within the framework that represent
relative weakness within your organization. These
weak areas might represent a good place to
focus your energies. If your organization has a
documented strategic vision or plan, it can also
be very helpful to map the existing strategic
vision to what you learned through completion of
the self-assessment tool.
Identify Barriers
Depending on what topics or areas of the
innovation culture framework you prioritize, it is
often helpful to identify the barriers that you
believe are preventing you from having made
more progress to date. Do you and your
colleagues agree on the key barriers? How might
your team circumvent them? Who has control
over the decisions or systems that keep them in
place?
Design Solutions
Working from the identified barrier(s), you can
begin to construct potential strategies to make
tangible progress. By reviewing specific
examples, as well as examining the descriptions
50

51
in more mature points along the sections of the
rubric (i.e., in Emerging or Adapting, if you
self-assessed at the level of Entering), you should
be able to begin to brainstorm potential solutions
to the barriers you identified. This can also
represent the beginning of an explicit design
process to chart a course forward for the
organization.
Share Feedback
The self-assessment tool itself, only represent a
first draft of this complex work. Only by working
together will we all learn what is needed to truly
understand what it takes to build and sustain a
culture of innovation. Therefore, we invite you to
access this Innovation Culture Assessment –
Feedback Form and share your thoughts,
questions, feedback and additional examples
with us. We will use this information to inform
future improvements to the framework and
self-assessment tool.
Request Support
We would be happy to explore other ways to
support you and your organizations in this
essential work. If you feel you might benefit from
additional guidance or support, please feel free to
contact either of our organizations directly
through our lead authors: Holly Morris
(hmorris@educause.edu) and Bryan Setser
(bryan@2revolutions.net).

Concluding Thoughts
Any effort to define what constitutes an effec-
tive organizational culture of innovation—much
less to commit to deliberately pursuing a strate-
gy to build and sustain one over time—is an
inherently tricky business. The key concepts,
the language to describe these concepts and
the examples of them in practice do not always
share a commonly understood meaning as they
are sometimes overlapping and continually
evolving. This is the context within which we
conducted our collective work over the past
several months. Nonetheless, the following fact
remains true: if we are to make significant
progress on radically transforming the learning
experiences and opportunities for America’s
students, we must give education leaders the
tools and support they need to build and
nurture organizations to do this work. In other
words, we must help them build and sustain an
innovation culture within their organizations.
The framework and tool presented here
represents a start. It is our goal to engage in the
work honestly and transparently with all who
share our sense of urgency regarding the need
to make tangible progress on this question. At
the same time, while we are proud of this effort,
we recognize that we don’t know what we don’t
know. Therefore, we are currently seeking
opportunities to test this new framework and
tool in practice with colleagues at both the
institutional and state levels. We are confident
that the insights and lessons gleaned from
these early attempts to implement the tool will
lead to improvements in subsequent versions,
which we look forward to sharing with the field.
In the meantime, we hope this iteration can
serve as a helpful tool for those of you already
working on this important question.
“There is no finish line.”
- Nike
52

2Revolutions (2Rev) is a national education
design lab that specializes in designing,
launching and supporting Future of Learning
models, and helping to catalyze the conditions
within which they can thrive.
We apply a design-inspired, action-oriented
approach to each of our projects. We are
currently collaborating with a range of
forward-thinking states, districts, funders,
organizations and entrepreneurs who are striving
to build or accelerate the Future of Learning.
In addition to our core work, our tagline “Do What
You Love, For Good” captures the culture we’re
building at 2Rev. We are passionate about
helping to fix what’s broken with the way we
educate students in this country, but we also
want to enjoy the work we do. After all, we
believe that happy people are smarter, more
creative and more productive. Learn more at
www.2revolutions.net.
2Revolutions Social Media:
Twitter: @2Revolutions
Facebook: facebook.com/2revolutions
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/2revolutions
EDUCAUSE is a national non-profit that helps
those who lead, manage and use information
technology (IT) to shape strategic IT decisions at
every level within higher education. IT is more
than technology to EDUCAUSE members. It is a
system of people, processes, organizations and
challenges that are constantly evolving.
Next Generation Learning Challenges (NGLC), an
initiative of EDUCAUSE, accelerates educational
innovation through applied technology to
dramatically improve college readiness and
completion in the United States. NGLC is guided
by the belief that providing investment capital to
expand the use of proven and emerging learning
technologies, collecting and sharing evidence of
what works, and fostering a community of
innovators and adopters will result in a robust
pool of solutions and greater institutional
adoption which, in turn, will dramatically improve
the quality of learning experiences in the United
States.
EDUCAUSE and NGLC Social Media:
Twitter: @EDUCAUSE and @NextGenLC
Facebook: facebook.com/EDUCAUSE and
facebook.com/nextgenlearning
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/educause and
linkedin.com/company/next-generation-
learning-challenges
Who We Are
53
EDUCAUSE NGLC

Holly Morris, Director of Postsecondary Model
Development and Adoption, NGLC
As the Director of Postsecondary Model
Development and Adoption at NGLC, Holly
Morris is responsible for the management of the
Breakthrough Models Academy and the
Breakthrough Models Incubator, two programs
offered by EDUCAUSE through its Next
Generation Learning Challenges initiative, which
is generously funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation. The Incubator (for C-suite leadership
teams) and the Academy (for current and
emerging individual leaders) are designed to
promote the design and implementation of new
models to advance affordability, access, quality
and completion.
To this work, Ms. Morris brings 10 years of
experience in leadership development coaching
with both individual leaders and networks of
education professionals. Prior to joining
EDUCAUSE, she worked in the Center for
Leadership and Professional Development at the
University of Washington School of Law. She
holds a M.Ed. in education policy from the
University of Washington, a J.D. from the
University of California at Berkeley and a B.A.
from Northwestern University.
Bryan Setser, Partner, 2Revolutions
As a Partner at 2Revolutions, Bryan’s portfolio
includes some of the most innovative educators
in the country at the state, foundation, higher
education, school district and organization levels.
A curiosity creator and architect of America's
"digerati" movement in public education, Bryan
revitalized and transformed the North Carolina
Virtual School into a national model for e-learning
serving over 50,000 students annually. As Chief
Quality Officer, his school district was recognized
as a Malcolm Baldrige National Award Winner
and a national best practice staff development
site by the American Productivity and Quality
Council.
Bryan has served on numerous national reform
efforts including the National Digital Learning
Council, Learn and Earn Early College Program,
the iNACOL State Leadership Team, NC
Education Cloud Team and the State Virtual
Leaders Alliance. He has been appointed by three
separate Governors in North Carolina to the
E-learning and School Technology Commissions.
In addition to these accomplishments, Bryan has
also served at multiple levels of p-26 education
as an award winning teacher, principal, assistant
superintendent and e-learning instructor at NC
State University.
Bryan completed education specialist and
doctoral degrees in educational leadership at the
University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He also
earned a masters in education leadership from
Winthrop University in South Carolina, and he
holds an English degree from East Carolina
University.
About the Authors
54

Eric Allen, Founder and President, Admit
Advantage
Virginia M. Barry Ph.D., Commissioner of
Education, New Hampshire Department of
Education
Richard Boyd, Co-Founder & CEO, Szl.it Inc
Evan Burfield, Founder and Co-CEO, 1776
Gary Brahm, Ph.D., Chancellor, Brandman
University
Molly Corbett Broad, President, American
Council on Education
Andy Calkins, Deputy Director, Next Generation
Learning Challenges
Asa Craig, Education and Venture Development
Manager, Laura and John Arnold Foundation
Laurie Dodge, Ph.D., Vice Provost and Vice
Chancellor of Institutional Assessment, Brandman
University
Lisa Duty, Ph.D., Partner, The Learning
Accelerator
Carol S. Dweck Ph.D., Lewis and Virginia Eaton
Professor of Psychology, Stanford University
John Fitzpatrick, Executive Director,
Educate Texas
Linda France, Director, Next Generation Learning
NxGL, College of Education Kentucky P20
Innovation Lab, University of Kentucky
Thomas L. Friedman, Op-Ed Columnist,
New York Times
Paul Leather, Deputy Commissioner of Education,
New Hampshire Department of Education
Todd Kern, Co-Founder & Principal, 2Revolutions
Paul J. LeBlanc, Ph.D., President, Southern New
Hampshire University
Kathi Littmann, Ed.D., Senior Program Officer
College Ready Work, Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation
Scott Milam, Co-Founder and Managing Director,
Afton Partners
Brian Peddle, Founder & CEO, Motivis Learning
Acknowledgements
This framework and tool would not have been possible without the conversations, insights and
reflections shared by the educational leaders here. We want to extend a special thanks to Todd
Kern, Co-Founder and Principal of 2Revolutions and Lisa Duty, Partner at the Learning
Accelerator, who laid the groundwork for this framework in the first version of this publication,
So You Think You Want to Innovate? Emerging Lessons and a New Tool for State and District Leaders
Working to Build a Culture of Innovation.
55
Deborah C. Jackson, President, Cambridge
College
Prema Arasu, Ph.D., CEO and Vice Provost,
Kansas State University Olathe

Matthew Rascoff, Vice President for
Technology-Based Learning & Innovation,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Jack Reed, Senator (D-RI), United States Senate
Susan Rivers, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Yale
Center for Emotional Intelligence and Research
Scientist, Psychology Department, Yale University
Elwood L. Robinson, Ph.D., Chancellor,
Winston-Salem State University
William "Art" Rouse, Ed.D., Chair, Department of
Educational Leadership, East Carolina University
College of Education
Cathy Sandeen, Ph.D., Chancellor, University of
Wisconsin Colleges and University of
Wisconsin-Extension
John Sellars, Ph.D., CPA, President,
Graceland University
Patrick Sellers, Ph.D., Vice President for
Strategic Partnerships, Davidson College
Deborah Seymour, Ph.D., Assistant Vice
President, Center for Education Attainment and
Innovation, American Council on Education
Elena Silva, Ph.D., Senior Associate, Public
Policy Engagement, Carnegie Foundation
Rick Staisloff, Founder and Principal, rpkGROUP
Michelle R. Weise, Ph.D., Higher Education
Senior Research Fellow, Clayton Christensen
Institute for Disruptive Innovation
Nicholas S. Zeppos, Chancellor, Vanderbilt
University
Acknowledgements (continued)
56
Maria Popova, Writer
Sheri Ranis, Strategy Director, Lumina
Foundation for Education

Barsh, Joanna; Capozzi, Marla M.; and Davidson,
Jonathan. “Leadership and Innovation.”
Insights & Publications. McKinsey & Company: Jan.
2008.
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/innovation/leadersh
ip_and_innovation
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. “America as 100
College Students.” Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation:
2015.
http://postsecondary.gatesfoundation.org/student-stor
ies/america-as-100-college-students/
Boundless Management. “Organizational Culture and
Innovation.” Author: n.d.
https://www.boundless.com/management/textbooks/b
oundless-management-textbook/organizational-cultur
e-and-innovation-4/
Brown, Tim. “How Do You Build a Culture of
Innovation?” Yale Insights. Yale School of
Management: n.d.
http://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/how-do-you-build
-culture-innovation
Buckley, Lisa. “Six Ways to Create-and Sustain-a
Culture of Innovation.” ?What If! Innovation Partners:
n.d.
http://www.whatifinnovation.com/greenhouse/6-ways-
to-create-and-sustain-a-culture-of-innovation
Christensen, Clayton M. and Weise, Michelle R. Hire
Education Mastery, Modularization, and the Workforce
Revolution. Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive
Innovation: July 2014.
http://www.christenseninstitute.org/publications/hire/
Claver, Enrique; Juan Llopis, Juan; Garcia, Daniel; and
Molina, Hipolito. “Organizational Culture for Innovation
and New Technological Behavior.” Institutional
Repository of the University of Alicante (Spain): 2003.
http://faculty.mu.edu.sa/public/uploads/1360752011.8
013organizational%20cult12.pdf
Ebersole, John. “Top Issues Facing Higher Education
In 2014.” Forbes: Jan. 2014.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnebersole/2014/01/13/
top-issues-facing-higher-education-in-2014/
Price, Robert M. “Infusing Innovation into Corporate
Culture.” Organizational Dynamics: 2007. 36.3: 320-28.
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic161082.files/
Reading_Materials_Week_2/Infusing_innovation_into_c
orp_culture.pdf
Robertson, Larry L. “How to Create a Culture of
Innovation.” Associations Now, American Society of
Association Executives: July 2011.
http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/ANowDetail.cfm
?ItemNumber=98669
Scanlon, Jessie. “How to Build a Culture of
Innovation.” Bloomberg Business Week, How to
Innovate: 19 Aug. 2009.
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/aug2
009/id20090819_070601.htm
Yurko, Heather. “Building Your Innovation Culture.”
Center for Innovation Management Studies. North
Carolina State University: n.d.
http://cims.ncsu.edu/building-your-innovation-culture/
Consulted Works
We are certainly not the first to tackle innovation cultures, and these works proved to be
especially helpful to our research, thought process and subsequent iterations.
57

Building a Culture of Innovation in Higher Education

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to Building a Culture of Innovation in Higher Education

More from Luciano Sathler

Recently uploaded

Building a Culture of Innovation in Higher Education