Remco Coppoolse

Research question: Work rules to strengthen the continuity of top-down education innovation
The drive for innovation in higher vocational education is great, but educational innovation does not go off without a hitch. Educational innovations often fail. They fail to achieve the intended purpose or are terminated in the course of the process due to lack of results. Stagnation in the innovation process is a common problem and a major cause for the lack of results.

How change initiatives that are initially associated with energy become stagnant, is related to the key problems of the approach to educational innovation. The first key problem is that the approach is based on linear reasoning which does not correspond with the dynamics of education innovation. In higher vocational education there is a strong tendency to engage in educational innovation with a top-down innovation approach. The assumption underlying the linear reasoning is that innovation is a rational process that has a linear trend and can be planned in time. However, research shows that education is not as innovative as the architects of ambitious innovations expect (Lagerweij & Lagerweij-Voogt, 2004). Planned and linearly change, the prescribed tools for driving education innovations are not necessarily present. The dynamics and progress of education innovations seem difficult to predict and a predetermined time path will therefore rarely be realized.

The second key problem of top-down educational innovations is that innovation starts from the perspective of an actor, namely the initiator, but ignores the substantive discussion with teachers. The teacher is not seen as a designer of education, but as executor of innovations devised by others (Fullan, 2007; Verloop, Van Driel & Meijer, 2001; Hargreaves, 2001). The result is that teachers have difficulties to effectively integrate the desired new behavior in their work routine (Bergen & Van Veen, 2004). As a result, teachers are not inclined to implement new behavior and innovation stagnates.

Starting point in this study is that the top-down perspective on educational innovation is unsuccessful. In educational innovation, various actors influence the course of the innovation. This makes educational innovation a dynamic game with an unpredictable course. Therefore, an approach that reduces the unpredictability of the course and the influence of many players is needed. This study therefore uses instead of a linear single actor perspective a dynamic multi-actor perspective, in which education innovation is considered a dynamic event as a result of a multitude of actors that influence the course of the innovation.

Within this dynamic multi-actor perspective, this study focuses on one of the actors, namely the innovation manager. The task of this actor is to monitor the continuity of the innovation process and to intervene in case of imminent stagnation. Unfortunately, little is known from previous research about what an innovation manager can or should do to keep educational innovations going and prevent stagnation. The aim of this study is to give clarity from the dynamic multi-actor perspective about what an innovation manager can do to achieve continuity in educational innovation and prevent stagnation. The knowledge sought in this study is in the form of work rules. The idea is that innovation managers can use these work rules to properly implement their contributions, given the activities and contributions of other actors.

The central research question is: Which set of work rules for innovation managers contribute to continuity in top-down educational innovation?

The central research question is divided into theoretical and empirical research questions. The theoretical research questions are:
1. What is known in literature about how continuity or stagnation in education innovation develops?
2. What are work rules and what is known about work rules that are employed by innovation managers in education innovation?
3. What insights from earlier research are there about how rules for innovation managers can contribute to continuity or prevention of stagnation in education innovation?
The empirical research questions are aimed at designing preliminary preliminary work rules that are eventually incorporated into a set of unique work rules. The empirical research questions are:
4. Which preliminary work rules for innovation managers, which contribute to continuity or prevention of stagnation in educational innovation, can be deduced from an explorative casestudie?
5. According to experienced innovation managers, what preliminary work rules contribute to continuity or prevention of stagnation in education innovation?
6. Which preliminary rules for innovation managers, which contribute to continuity or prevention of stagnation in education innovation, can be deduced from concrete examples of education innovation?
7. Which final set of rules for innovation managers can be drawn up on the basis of the three sub-studies?

This design-oriented research developed a conceptual framework to study innovative top-down from a dynamic multi-actor perspective on the basis of a thorough analysis of the literature. Then three different research methods were applied to develop work rules.

The data from these methods form the basis for the design of a so-called orientation base with a set of substantiated and coherent work rules for innovation managers. The usefulness of this orientation base was investigated sequentially.

Conceptual framework: Orientation base and work rules
Thorough literature study on educational innovation provides three elements for a conceptual framework that describes the playing field in which the innovation manager manages and the mechanisms that he can exert on the basis of the three aforementioned elements.

The first element is the dynamic multi-actor perspective, approaching educational innovation as a context in which a pluralism of actors contributes to the development of educational innovation. Since images, views, methods and intended results differ among involved actors, the course of educational innovation becomes dynamic and unpredictable.

The second element is the elaboration of the dynamic multi-actor perspective with the development cycle of Van Delden (2009). The development cycle offers a basis for considering teaching innovation as a dynamic system which takes place between closely involved exogenous and endogenous actors and is a guideline for the continuity of the educational innovation. The continuity is created by the fact that developmental energy is released by actor groups at different times during the innovation. The release of developmental energy leads to three impulses: intentional, activist and connecting impulses. The impulses are created by the release of developmental energy from the carriers of that phase. Continuity in the development cycle occurs when the impulses are created and as the impulse goes on to a next group of actors. Stagnation arises if the impulse is absent or if the transitions remain from one to the next impulse.

The third element of the conceptual framework is formed by the characteristics of continuity and stagnation in educational innovation. From a selection of 32 of articles on educational innovation it can be deduced that continuity is created if there is any deeper learning in developers in the design practice, there is alignment in the design practice, developers themselves have control over the educational innovation, there is an inspirational concept that underlies in the change initiative, and if no so-called micro-politics is provoked.

If there is no alignment in the design practice due to the lack of an inspirational concept or autonomy among developers, the chance of micro-politics amongst developers is high, which in turn causes stagnation in the development cycle.

Central in the dynamic multi-actor perspective as developed in the conceptual framework is that the development cycle continues and does not stagnate. In order to maintain continuity, the interaction between actors is an important starting point. The question is how the innovation manager, using this interaction, can influence the development cycle in education innovations to ensure continuity and prevent stagnation. To answer this question work rules for innovation managers were designed.

To come to work rules that contribute to the continuity in educational innovation, the mechanism of work rules is explored and a format is developed. CHAT (Engeström, 1987) is used to elaborate on how the innovation manager influences continuity in the development cycle through mediating tools. Work rules are defined as rules of conduct that innovation managers can use to influence the continuity of education innovation and prevent or break stagnation. The work rules define who the actor is, what the action is and how it contributes to continuity, thus providing the innovation manager with clarity on how he can achieve continuity or prevent stagnation. However, simply offering a set of rules of work as an alternative to the mediating tools appears to have little chance of success (Weber, 2005). Innovation managers are inclined using a new set of work rules to reflect on and apply their own rules when they match the problems they experience.

The solution is found in the notion of orientation bases (Engeström, 1994; Entertainment, 2009). An orientation base is a model that someone uses to model, evaluate, and solve tasks related to a phenomenon. Because innovation managers operate in different contexts and benefit from an orientation base with clear and cohesive work rules, the orientation base has characteristics of both an algorithm and a system model.

These insights lead to an orientation base format as a coherent set of substantiated work rules that consists of:
(1) Work rules that clarify what action the actor can take to influence continuity in the development cycle.
(2) Clear instructions in the rules of work, without extensive language usage.
(3) A description of the anecdotes about the findings of the work rules that helps to understand the work rules.
(4) A clear systematic overall picture with significant patterns.

By means of design based research, the perspective of an orientation base is used to search for work rules and a regulatory framework as key elements of the orientation base for innovation managers.

Explorative casestudie, Delphi study and three learning histories
The design of a set of work rules took place in three studies, namely an exploratory casestudie, a Delphi study and a learning history research. In the exploratory casestudie, data collection took place through interviews (n = 8), observations (144 hours) and logs (n = 24) of activities of eight developers who were in the process of a change initiative. The analysis of the data led to five remarkable results that influenced the continuity of education innovation. Based on these results, a first set of five preliminary work rules was developed. These were further developed and refined in collaboration with 35 experienced innovation managers using a Delphi study consisting of four rounds. By presenting the results from the previous round in each subsequent round and asking the experts whether they maintained their point of view, consensus was reached on the set of preliminary rules. The Delphi study resulted in eleven preliminary work rules. Subsequently three learning histories were used to examine in practice what an innovation manager can do to achieve continuity or prevent stagnation. Interviews with participants in these educational innovations led to remarkable insights into how continuity of educational innovation is influenced. The learning histories led to the development of a further eight work rules on the basis of reconstructions of three education innovations. Eventually, the analysis of the preliminary work rules from these studies led to a final set of 18 work rules for innovation managers.

Result: Orientation base with work rules for innovation managers
The answer to the central question are 18 work rules that describe what an innovation manager can do to achieve continuity in educational innovation. The work rules have been projected on a spiral regulatory framework This leads to a generic orientation base that identifies critical moments where stagnation can arise and provides work rules that enable an innovation manager to influence the progress of educational innovation. The pattern in the orientation base is based on transferring developmental energy within and between actor groups. Releasing developmental energy keeps educational innovation going on, not releasing leads to stagnation.

The spiral pattern within the orientation base starts with a change initiative and continues until innovation is realized and scaled up to other parts of the educational organization. In the first round, stimulating explorations, a change initiative is further investigated. In a first exploration the reason for the change initiative is analyzed and involved actors seek for first solution directions. In this context orientations with stakeholders and the activities of precursors are important. The results from this round constitute directional images for the continuation of education innovation. The work rules that the innovation manager can use in this round are:
1. The innovation manager advises the line manager - after consulting developers - to announce a clear and unambiguous change initiative with a clear reason, objective and criteria for the elaboration.
2. The innovation manager advises the line manager to organize collaboration activities with external partners and facilitators to initiate the initiative so that the precursors spread the innovation among other developers.
3. The innovation manager ensures trust between the actors, by advising management to show interest in the design practice and being transparent about goals, processes and outcomes.

During the second round, matching images about the learning environment, the contours of the solutions are further elaborated in learning outcomes, educational concepts, and in order to help match images with those involved. The work rules that the innovation manager can use in this round are:
4. The innovation manager formulates the change initiative to appeal to the interests of developers, which places developers themselves in the process of making changes in their education.
5. The innovation manager offers the line manager and other actors outside the design practice insight in what is already happening in education practice helping to shape the change initiative, so that initiatives that are in line with the change initiative are supported and valuable elements are retained.
6. The innovation manager advises the line manager to facilitate developers to experiment with changes in their education practices appropriate to the change initiative, so that the impact of education in line with the change initiative is realized.
7. The innovation manager communicates his role and summarizes the developmental stages in education innovation, so developers know what has happened, what is expected of them and what is still going to happen.
8. The innovation manager makes clear arrangements regarding decision making between management, innovation managers and developers, adjusting the style of decision making on team needs and involves developers in decision making by engaging in development steps so that social commitment is created.
9. The innovation manager encourages middle management, such as educational managers or team leaders or a group of leading teachers to (1) establish connection between developers and actors outside of design practice and (2) form a heat shield for incentives of actors from outside the design practice of teachers so that developers have space to innovate education.
10. The innovation manager advises the line manager to reserve sufficient time in the developer’s task force and organizes workflows at external locations, enabling developers to develop education without being distracted and creating ownership of developers of education.
11. The innovation manager organizes collaboration with professional practice with open communication between different actors and takes into account differences in work processes between representatives from the educational and occupational field, so that both parties agree on the way education is worked out.

This leads to the start of the third round, dynamics in design practice, in which the developers actually work out the innovation into materials offered to students. This is often a messy phase. Often, it is only in this place that a reality check occurs and the consequences of earlier choices will then become clear for some of the developers. This reality check can lead to a drop in the pattern, because the previously chosen principles are discussed. The work rules that the innovation manager can use in this round are:
12. The innovation manager ensures the alignment of images between actors, aimed at a common image, so that new education is built based on a similar image.
13. The innovation manager creates a system in which the different groups of actors communicate, so that meaning and language between actors are matched.
14. The innovation manager asks developers what they want to change in their education and how they deal with it, so ownership of the development of innovation in teacher education continues.
15. The innovation manager investigates whether developers in the design practice have objections to education innovation and whether they are able to design new education within the educational frameworks. The innovation manager also organizes support and adapts the development order so that developers do not experience barriers in getting started with the change initiative in the design practice.
16. The innovation manager puts experts with specific competencies in support of developers in realizing new education or alignment between actors, so that specific activities or insights ensure that developers continue to innovate in education.
17. The innovation manager encourages tippers to tackle their connecting role by letting them know what drives them and enabling them to play that role.

As the pattern continues, we see that educational innovation ends in the fourth round, restart with the matching of images of the education. In this round, educational innovation has reached a stage in which the results of educational innovation are deployed at the start of a new educational innovation or to other parts of the educational organization. The work rules that the innovation manager can use in this round is:
18. The innovation manager investigates what went well in the previous education innovation before the innovation process is scaled up or started elsewhere and fits the work processes to the new involved actors, so that the enthusiasm to get started with the innovation will also take place.

Stimulating explorations | Matching in images about the learning environment | Dynamics in design practice | Reshuffling the images

Unambiguous change initiative | Overview of development steps | System for communication
Cooperation activities with external parties and precursors | Agreements on decision making | Developers indicate what they want to change
Trust between actors | Middle management heat shield and binding on realization | Support from developers on the basis of objections
Change initiative appeals to developers | Time and space for developers | Add specific expertise to design practice
Insight into educational practice | Cooperation with professional practice | Use tippers for connection
Encourage developers to experiment | Matching images to a shared image | New work organization for upscaling

figure 9.
Generic orientation base as a coherent substantiated set of work rules. The course in education innovation has been shown in four rounds. The arrows stand for the impulse in the development cycle, namely intentional (red), activist (orange) or connecting impulse (purple). The figures indicate where in the course of education innovation the work rules influence the continuity.

An innovation manager uses the orientation base to explore in which round the innovation is and where the stagnation occurs in the pattern. At times of stagnation, the innovation manager can pave out work rules as an intervention to regain the developmental energy in that part of the spiral.

Value of research: Theory formation on education innovation and reinforcement of educational management practices
Additional research on usability shows that using the orientation base contributes to continuity in the practice of education innovation and creates conditions to achieve deeper learning activities among developers and prevent micro-politics of teachers. This is achieved by employing managers aligning developers in design practices, and managing towards reconciliation of the initiator of innovation and the developers who are to further shape innovation in the design practice. In addition, using the orientation base shows that individual innovation managers help lead education innovation, help teams reflect on ongoing innovation and contribute to the knowledge of education innovation in the community of experts engaged in education innovation.

This research offers three theoretical refinements of the literature. The first refinement is that the elaboration of the dynamic multi-actor perspective offers a new approach to educational innovation. The second sophistication is the approach to educational innovations using the CHAT (Engeström, 1987). This approach is not new, but also not common sense in research on educational innovation. What is new is designing an orientation base, not as a compelling format, but as an alternative to innovation managers’ mediating tools. The third sophistication is the influencing tactics based on the orientation base, aimed at matching images and processes between actors.

The study will be completed with a discussion of the contribution of this research to the teaching practice and reflecting on the strengths and the limitations of the chosen research methods for the design of this orientation base. This reflection leads to recommendations for direct follow-up research on the completeness of the orientation base, the empirical substantiation of the relationship between the deployment of the orientation base and the developmental energy in the design practice and the manageability of the work rules. One of the places where the orientation base will be further developed is the Learning Lab Educational Innovation at University of applied sciences Utrecht. Here innovation managers can learn how they can influence the course of educational innovations using the orientation base and its work rules.