Scoping, Connecting, & Shepherding

(A. Solano)

A setting is a time and place for educators to get important work done. Committees are not the ideal setting to accomplish work. They're filled with arcane, time-wasting procedures such as Robert's Rules, they're the place where obstructionists plant themselves with endless "concerns," and where politics is in full display. Therefore, it's committee sub-workgroups and/or independent workgroup settings that are better equipped to help the institution create change toward improved equitable outcomes and student success.

It doesn't matter what your title is at the campus. If you're heavily invested and involved in transformational change, consider yourself a campus leader. Campus leaders need to be able to scope the work to align with settings, connect and build relationships among settings, and shepherd the work, especially at critical junctures.[1]

Example: Guided Pathways and Equity Work

SCOPING

My 3-month rule means that the typical campus really only has about three months in a year to get priority work done. Scope the work among settings so you can cease to be the typical campus.

Prompts:
1. Analyze the degree to which the scope of Guided Pathways & equity work is aligned with the size, time, and frequency of the settings available.

2. Based on your analysis, describe any adjustments in scope and/or settings that are needed to better support successful implementation.

CONNECTING

Relationships, relationships, relationships. Implementation falters without relationships.

Prompts:
3. Analyze the specific connections and relationships among the settings that are important to successful Guided Pathways & equity implementation.

4. Based on your analysis, describe how these specific connections and relationships might be made among the settings and/or supported by other discussions.

SHEPHERDING

Transformational change work will always experience significant challenges. To neglect taking action at critical points when the work is most challenging will help ensure failure and/or waste considerable time to problem-solve issues that have been fomenting for years. 

5. Analyze the implementation chronology and identify the critical junctures where the work requires specific leadership and/or assistance.

6. For each critical juncture identified describe the specific leadership and/or assistance that is needed and by whom and through what setting it will be delivered.

Three findings using the Scoping, Connecting, Shepherding (SCS) analysis:

1. A college realized it has set itself up for fantastical confusion and frustration because their student success committee, equity task force, Guided Pathways steering, and DEI workgroup were all overlapping and duplicating the work. The lack of integration wasted four years of any meaningful action.

2. A college planned to implement a case/cohort management student success team model per career and academic pathway (aka, meta-major), but learned that it was about to duplicate the work of their existing comprehensive First Year Experience program (which is highly equitable in its implementation). They need to reimagine how student success teams will be implemented.

3. A college learned that the president's effort not to appear "top-down" in the Guided Pathways work did more harm than good because she was needed at critical junctures. The work had come to complete standstill. All presidents need to ensure that Guided Pathways is a college council agenda item at least once a month.

***

Also visit: Culture Change & Continuous Improvement | Organizing the Guided Pathways Work | Five Process Elements: Avoid False Starts & Wasted Time

[1] Thanks to my good friends and colleagues, Dr. Bill Saunders and Dr. Brad Ermeling, for their Scoping, Connecting, Shepherding (SCS) exercise to help educators take a step back and analyze initiative implementation. They developed the exercise for a conference breakout session in 2010.