Table 3 Scorecard for Institutional Change Proposals
Challenge grants are one of the most powerful initiators of change an institution can undertake. By stimulating the development of innovative projects, they are effective and significant vehicles through which to leverage internal operating funds with individual creativity and initiative in ways that align with institutional strategic and operational plans. This module describes the nature and purpose of internal challenge grant systems, and introduces a seven-step process for implementing them. Key tools and techniques are highlighted, as are key issues that must be addressed to implement effective change projects.
Table 1 Challenge Grant Process |
|
|
Definition of an Internal Challenge Grant System
An internal challenge grant system is a process by which an institution sets aside a portion of its own (internal) funds to invite and finance innovation within the institution in ways that will improve its effectiveness. The idea is not that the institution will finance the entire project, but rather that it will provide seed money to get a project started and facilitate a strong enough beginning to better enable the grant recipient(s) to solicit sustaining funds from external sources. It is a challenge in that it is a competitive process designed to encourage new ways to promote institutional or academic goals using the broader strategic plan as the source for establishing selection criteria. It is a system because typically funds are allocated every year for this purpose, and the project selection committee members often become increasingly skilled at facilitating change within the larger institutional culture, sometimes with the help of an external change agent.
Purpose of Challenge Grants
Internal challenge grants have wide applicability and are relevant to anyone in higher education who wants to initiate and develop incremental or transformational change at an institution-wide or a more discrete level (Jenkins, Mitra, Gupta & Shaw, 1998). The goal is to develop the strongest proposals and fund those with the greatest likelihood of success. Internal funding is an affirmation by the administration that the specified changes are valued and will be supported, and it encourages all personnel within the institution to be cognizant and supportive of the institution’s larger strategic goals. It is also intended to be a growth-promoting system because it requires that grantees seek external funding to sustain their projects, ultimately relieving their dependence on the institution, and therefore releasing those internal funds to be spent to support new opportunities and directions (Powers, 2000). Internal challenge grants also initiate and seed change by necessitating the development of a cadre of individuals who will run the grant system, and who must therefore be educated about change processes so that they can effectively apply these processes to the particular institution’s culture (1.1.2 Changing Expectations for Higher Education and 1.1.3 Efforts to Transform Higher Education).
Methodology for Establishing Challenge Grants
A clearly expressed and understood process for implementing a challenge grant process makes it accessible to all interested parties and can be used at any institution. The seven steps of this process are listed in Table 1. An explanation of each step follows.
1. Identify change projects and participants
Change projects that are common today often have to do with increasing retention, promoting online courses, creating multidisciplinary curricula, or enhancing student faculty research (1.3.3 Designing a Quality Action Project). All projects should align with institutional strategic planning and assessment processes (1.3.2 Academic Strategic Planning—The Basics, 4.1.1 Overview of Assessment, and 1.5.2 Methodology for Designing a Program Assessment System) and may be selected by the academic leadership and faculty and/or other administrators depending on the change sponsor. The selection process should be focused enough to achieve the desired outcomes, but not so restricted or inflexible that viable and persuasive community-supported change initiatives are not eligible (Amabile, 1997).
2. Design professional development support
Potential applicants will benefit from a workshop that creates the opportunity for project teams from various academic disciplines and administrative units to learn about and discuss theories of organizational change processes and strategies and their relationship to organizational culture. There are generally several dynamic outcomes for the institution as well (1.3.8 Successful Institutional Change—The Human Dimension). The general knowledge gained about change processes and strategies and the application of that knowledge to a reflective analysis of institutional culture are transferable to other areas of endeavor within the institution. The probability of reflective analysis occurring is maximized by the use of external facilitators who can guide and critique this discussion. The probability of successful implementation of the change project is enhanced by this knowledge and the application of theory and practice (Kezar & Eckel, 2002). Buy-in and ownership of the project and the overall change initiative is increased, and the presentations and discussions that occur among the various teams increase intellectual cross-fertilization and opportunities to visualize and articulate how the various projects align with basic institutional strategic and operational plans. The professional development activities that precede the grant process provide an excellent opportunity for the project teams and other potential participants to discuss and build appropriate criteria, procedures, and timeframes for the RFP process and the subsequent grant process. The resulting competitive process has greater legitimacy and credibility than one that is viewed as administratively imposed. The engagement created by the education and planning process can also lead to continued teamwork and efforts to secure external funding on projects that do not receive internal funding (Powers, 2000).
3. Develop the proposal process
The request for proposals should clearly set forth the application process and the eligibility and selection criteria, and should review procedures to assure transparency and confidence in the process. Table 2 sets forth a sample RFP outline.
4. Design an assessment and review process
The goal is to develop the strongest proposals and fund those with the greatest likelihood of success while honoring institutional transparency in making the final funding decisions. Thus it is important to separate the assessment and evaluation activities by having independent review teams. The assessment team is used to improve the final proposal prior to submission through structured and candid feedback. This allows for a process of improvement without sending negative or inaccurate messages of ineptness to the actual evaluators. The evaluation team is then free to evaluate the proposal on its actual merits.
5. Evaluate proposals
Appoint the evaluation team to review, evaluate, and rank proposals. Table 3 provides a potential scoring sheet for evaluation of the proposals. If this scorecard has been readily shared in advance, the trust level of all parties will be greatly enhanced. At this stage determine how final funding decisions are to be made, i.e., evaluation team, change sponsor, etc.
6. Assess and monitor the change process
Establish reporting benchmarks and periodic meetings of project leaders to discuss progress and concerns and to create and nurture synergies among the projects. This is an excellent point at which to integrate challenge grants into institutional planning. Whether the desired change is incremental or transformational, if it is to be more than transitory, a challenge grant initiative must be intentional, purposeful, and culturally coherent. It should align with the institution’s strategic, operating, and assessment plans, and the review, evaluation, and assessment processes must be transparent if the initiative is to be sustainable and supported by the community (Mecca, 2004).
7. Seek external resources
Challenge grants are intended to be strategic infusions of capital to spearhead rather than sustain change. The effectiveness of the change proposals will be limited by fiscal constraints and competing demands for internal resources; therefore, the requirement and articulated plans to seek external funding should be conditions of internal funding. By engaging services of Offices of Sponsored Research and Development to identify potential funding agents, the innovative grant leaders will have access to institutional expertise to increase the likelihood of being successful in getting external funding. Seeking external funding allows the institution to recycle internal funds and motivates the community to act to garner new resources for the institution.
Concluding Thoughts
Challenge grants can be powerful mechanisms for realizing the human capacity within an organization as innovative ideas and energies are aligned with the desired directions of the institution and the academic affairs of the institution. Those who see this as a source for innovation and transformation need to be vigilant on a number of issues. Finding the resources to fund this sort of initiative is not insignificant. Since most institutions do not find themselves with an abundance of discretionary money, these funds likely mean that some other initiatives have not received funding or have received funding that some stakeholders consider less than sufficient. For this reason, it is imperative that the program is operated with integrity, that desired results are realized, and that they are well publicized so that people throughout the institution know that this has been a good investment of funds. The synergies produced by the alignment of diverse change projects affecting myriad aspects of the institution create a transformed environment in which institutional strategic goals can be culturally embedded, referenced, and benchmarked. If all of these things are able to happen, the potential for motivating more and more applicants for such grants can be contagious and truly lead to transformation.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial creativity through motivational synergy. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 18-26.
Jenkins, G. D., Mitra, A., Gupta, N., & Shaw, J. (1998). Are financial incentives related to performance? A meta-analytic review of empirical research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 777-787.
Kezar, A. J. & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts. Journal of Higher Education, 73 (4), 435-460.
Mecca, T. V. (2004). Basic concepts of organizational change for administrative leaders. Lisle, IL: Pacific Crest.
Powers, J. B., (2000). The use of institutional incentive grants for strategic change in higher education. Review of Higher Education, 23 (3), 281-298.
|
The format of the proposal should be as follows, and each proposal should contain all of these sections. The anticipated lengths of each section are indicated; in no case should the entire proposal be longer than 3,000 words, including attachments. |
|
|
Executive Summary (maximum 300 words) |
|
|
Section 1: Statement of the Problem (maximum 500 words) |
|
|
1.1 |
Concise statement of problem |
|
1.2 |
Forces driving change |
|
1.3 |
Measuring what changes |
|
1.4 |
Benefits to be realized |
|
1.5 |
Issues that must be addressed |
|
1.6 |
Alignment to Strategic Plan |
|
1.7 |
Literature search |
|
Section 2: Vision for the Change (maximum 400 words) |
|
|
2.1 |
Present the future vision |
|
2.2 |
Gap analysis of the differences |
|
2.3 |
What values will be changed or improved |
|
Section 3: Project Plan (maximum 500 words) |
|
|
3.1 |
Goals and objectives |
|
3.2 |
Personnel |
|
3.3 |
Staffing plan |
|
3.4 |
Risk analysis and readiness for change |
|
3.5 |
Project budget – short-term and long-term |
|
3.6 |
Benefit/cost analysis |
|
Section 4: Transition Plan (maximum 400 words) |
|
|
4.1 |
Groups and individuals impacted |
|
4.2 |
Strategies to support these people |
|
4.3 |
Professional development efforts |
|
4.4 |
Clarifying the change roles: sponsor, advocate, & agent |
|
4.5 |
Long-term efforts to support change |
|
Section 5: Communication Plan (maximum 300 words) |
|
|
Section 6: Assessment and Evaluation Plan (maximum 300 words) |
|
|
6.1 |
Project outcomes |
|
6.2 |
Performance measures |
|
6.3 |
Assessment process |
|
6.4 |
Evaluation plan and standards |
|
Section 7: Plan for Securing External Funding (maximum 300 words) |
|
|
Areas of Quality |
Description |
Points Available |
RFP Location |
Points Awarded |
|
General Criteria |
||||
|
Criterion 1 |
Readiness for change |
13 points |
3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
|
1.1 |
Leadership |
2 points |
4.4, 5, 3.2, 3.3 |
|
|
1.2 |
Participants past successes |
2 points |
3.2 |
|
|
1.3 |
Sense of urgency – gap analysis |
4 points |
2.2/2.3 |
|
|
1.4 |
Communication plan |
2 points |
5, 6 |
|
|
1.5 |
Inclusion of impacted people |
3 points |
1, 3, 4.1, 4.2, 5 |
|
|
Specific Criteria Matching RFP Components |
||||
|
Criterion 2 |
Vision of change |
7 points |
2, 3 |
|
|
2.1 |
Values to be impacted |
3 points |
2.3, 3.3 |
|
|
2.2 |
Description of goal state |
4 points |
3.4, 2.1 |
|
|
Criterion 3 |
Significance of impact |
17 points |
1, 2, 3, 6 |
|
|
3.1 |
Alignment to university mission |
3 points |
2, 6, 1.1 |
|
|
3.2 |
Support of strategic plan |
3 points |
2.6, 1.6 |
|
|
3.3 |
Improved student learning |
4 points |
7, 1, 1.4 |
|
|
3.4 |
Improved student success |
4 points |
7, 1, 1.4 |
|
|
3.5 |
Issue analysis |
3 points |
2, 5, 1.5 |
|
|
Criterion 4 |
Feasibility of success |
15 points |
3, 4 |
|
|
4.1 |
Risk analysis |
5 points |
4.5, 3.4 |
|
|
4.2 |
Cost-benefit analysis |
5 points |
3.6, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5 |
|
|
4.3 |
Overall strength of plan |
5 points |
3, 4 |
|
|
Criterion 5 |
Team strength |
8 points |
4.3, 4.4, 5.5, 3.2, 3.3 |
|
|
5.1 |
Collective skill set |
4 points |
Throughout |
|
|
5.2 |
Roles and responsibilities |
2 points |
4.3, 4.4, 3.3 |
|
|
5.3 |
Interdisciplinary/cross functional |
2 points |
3.2, 3.3 |
|
|
Criterion 6 |
Commitment of change process roles |
10 points |
4, 5 |
|
|
6.1 |
Change sponsor(s) |
4 points |
4.4, 5 |
|
|
6.2 |
Change agents |
4 points |
4.4, 5 |
|
|
6.3 |
Change advocate(s) |
2 points |
4.4, 5 |
|
|
Criterion 7 |
Measures of success |
11 points |
1, 2, 3, 6, 7 |
|
|
7.1 |
Potential for external funding |
4 points |
7 |
|
|
7.2 |
Sustainability |
4points |
4, 5 |
|
|
7.3 |
Defined outcomes |
3 points |
1.2, 3, 4, 2.3, 3.1, 3.6, 6.7, 7 |
|
|
Criterion 8 |
Professional development |
5 points |
4, 5 |
|
|
Criterion 9 |
Resource requirements |
7 points |
3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
|
9.1 |
Adequacy |
3 points |
3.5, 4, 6 |
|
|
9.2 |
Minimum resources needed-year1 |
2 points |
3.5, 4, 6 |
|
|
9.3 |
Meets institutional fiscal and personnel policies |
2 points |
3, 4 |
|
|
Criterion 10 |
Literature search |
7 points |
1, 2, 4 |
|
|
10.1 |
Aligned with best practices |
3 points |
1.7, 2, 4.3 |
|
|
10.2 |
New ideas supported by others |
2 points |
1.7, 2, 4.3 |
|
|
10.3 |
Knowledgeable in area |
2 points |
1.7, 2, 4.3 |
|