CHAPTER 13.

Looking across the cases: Practices in action at specific stages of the entrepreneurial process

Raffaella Borasi, Constance Flahive & David E. Miller

In this chapter we will focus on how the entrepreneurial educators we studies engaged in the process of initiating and carrying out specific innovations – what has been referred to in the literature as the entrepreneurial process.   Our ultimate goal is to identify concrete practices that our subjects used effectively at specific stages of the entrepreneurial process, so that other educators can become aware of those practices as potential tools to increase the chances of success of their own innovations.  While some of these practices may be especially appropriate for specific educational contexts or types of innovation (as identified in Chapter 12), other may have much broader applicability.

More specifically, building on findings reported in the previous two chapters about our subjects’ entrepreneurial practices, their organization’s characteristics, and the types of educational innovations they engaged in, we have systematically analyzed the reconstruction of the 27 “featured innovations” reported in Chapters 3-10 to identify concrete practices used at each stage of their development.  As identified in Chapter 2 and used consistently to structure the narrative of each featured innovation in Chapters 3-10, these stages include:

• Coming up with the idea and evaluating/refining it
• Planning and gathering the needed resources
• Implementing and monitoring the initiative
• Ensuring long-term sustainability and/or bigger impact (when appropriate)

For each of these stages, we have collected in tables the practices that were employed by at least one of the subjects in one of the featured innovations – so as to create a broad inventory of possible practices other educators could consider when engaging at that particular stage of the process in future innovations.  Without the goal of being comprehensive, we will also share some considerations emerging from our analysis of how our subjects used some of these practices, with attention also to identify if specific practices may be most appropriate for certain contexts or types of innovations.

13.1. Coming up with the idea and evaluating/refining it

This is probably the most critical stage of the entrepreneurial process, in education as well as other fields.  Interestingly this is also the stage that our subjects spent most time on when telling their story of specific innovations – thus indicating that they also considered it the most important part of the whole process.

At its core, this stage involves an iterative process of refining an original idea by gathering additional information and perspectives, guided by strategic considerations; therefore, it is not linear.  However, we have found it helpful to conceptually identify and examine separately the following three critical components of this initial stage of the entrepreneurial process:

• Coming up with the initial idea for a worthwhile innovation
• Evaluating whether the idea is worth pursuing
• Making a final decision about whether to pursue the idea, and if so in what form

All of these components have a lot to do with how entrepreneurial educators approach opportunities – as already discussed in Chapter 11.  To avoid repetitions, for each of these components here we will just share some general considerations, and then provide tables that identify more “concrete” strategies within relevant practices already identified and discussed in Chapter 11.

Coming up with the initial idea for worthwhile innovations

We noticed a striking difference between what our subjects did at this very first stage of the entrepreneurial process, and what we found in entrepreneurship textbooks and trade-books about starting a new business venture.  Many of these books suggest to engage in a purposeful process for coming up with the idea of a potential new business, proposing techniques such as brainstorming exercises or the systematic analysis of industries and/or market areas experiencing growth and change.  In contrast, we noticed that none of the educators we studied engaged in such a process unless their organization was involved in a strategic planning effort (an experience only two of our subjects, Pat and Rod, explicitly mentioned in their interviews).  Rather, it seemed to us that they were always full of ideas about how to better serve their client and/or improve their institution’s operations, without requiring a purposeful and structured process to generate them.  These ideas seemed instead to come spontaneously from their continuous search for opportunities to put their vision into practice, which constituted an integral component of their everyday practice.

At the same time, we would not want to convey the impression that good ideas simply “happened” to our subjects.  Indeed, when looking across the featured innovations described in the previous chapters, we were able to identify a few practices that these educators employed on a regular basis, which contributed to making them alert to recognizing opportunities that might present themselves, and in some instances may even have pro-actively created some of these opportunities.  Building on the more general practices identified in Chapter 11 about uncovering and creating opportunities – that is, “scanning the environment” for potential opportunities, approaching problems as opportunities, using your networks to get to know about new opportunities, seeking and/or capitalizing on competitive advantages, and building on other people’s ideas – in Table 13.1 we have identified more “concrete” practices we observed our subjects employ in specific innovations as a way to operationalize each of the previous categories.

Before we list and comment on these more concrete practices, though, we would like to remind about the central role played by one’s vision and mission at this initial stage of the entrepreneurial process, combined with our subject’s approach to opportunities.  Depending on what our subjects were passionate about – whether it was leveling the playing field for urban students so that they could have equal opportunities to achieve success in their life (as in the case of Ralph and Lynn), developing new and more effective models of health care (Pat), or finding ways to enable blind people to live an independent and productive life (Gidget) – they lived and walked around with that vision in their mind, always proactively looking for new ways to move it forward. Because of this passion and drive, these educators were likely to recognize opportunities that others may not have seen, as well as be more open to considering taking on those opportunities.  For example, many would find it surprising for a school principal to conceive of opening a health clinic on school premises (especially in the 1980’s!), yet Ralph thought it was a logical next step after realizing the many health problems affecting his students’ learning.

Table 13.1. Practices to come up with ideas for worthwhile innovations

Seeking and/or capitalizing on competitive advantages:

The practices listed in Table 13.1 are by no means exclusionary, but rather complementary and somewhat overlapping.  Indeed, often the idea for the innovations we studied in depth as part of our case studies benefited from the use of multiple strategies.  For example, Lynn’s unit around producing and selling large NYS-shaped cookie cutters (Lynn’s innovation #1) came from the combination of the following practices: (a) reading in the literature about a geography lesson for elementary students (getting inspiration from the literature) that she thought would be worthwhile to do in her class, which in turn made her search for a large cookie cutter in the shape of New York State; (b) realizing that there was no cookie cutter she could buy in the size she needed, and beginning to think that she could produce and sell such cookie cutter with her class as a way to teach her students about business, math, and other valuable content (using a specific problem in her practice as stimulus for a new initiative); and (c) keeping her eyes open for grant requests for proposal (RFPs) that could provide the funding she needed to put this idea into practice, which gave her the final idea for the instructional unit (reviewing grant RFPs).  As this example illustrates, coming up with the idea for an innovation is also often an iterative process that takes place over time, and includes refining one’s original rough idea into a concrete and “doable” project – a point we will come back later in this section.

Evaluating whether an innovation is worth pursuing

Evaluating whether an idea for innovation is worth pursuing has been identified as critical in the literature on business entrepreneurship.  As most educators have more ideas for innovation than they have the time and resources to implement, it becomes even more important to decide which of the opportunities one has identified should be pursued. Yet, when examining existing textbooks on entrepreneurship about this topic, we realized that the approaches and tools they provided were very “business-centric” and would not be very applicable in education.  Therefore, we believe it is particularly important to look at how our subjects approached the evaluation of their educational ideas, so to as identify key questions they asked themselves as they examined and tried to refine their initial ideas.

In Chapter 11, when discussing our subjects’ approach to opportunities, we already identify the following areas as being considered by at least some of our subjects when evaluating opportunities for innovation: the value the innovation could add; the marketability/demand for the proposed innovation; one’s capacity to actually carry the initiative out; costs and revenues the innovation would involve; possible risks and way to manage them; and what would be the right time to embark in it.  In Table 13.3 we have listed more specific strategies we observed our subjects using to purse their evaluation within each of these components in the context of specific innovation, while taking into account the considerations reported in Chapter 11 about their overall approach to risk and resources, respectively.

First, though, we want to comment on a few “general” practices we also noticed our subjects use at this stage of the process, which involved how they approached gathering the information they needed in order to make their evaluation, and were not previously discussed in Chapter 11:

• Learning more about the “problem” or solution – from the relevant literature and/or practice/ research community AND/OR utilizing one’s networks:  All our subjects recognized the importance of continuing to gather information from a variety of sources so as to refine their understanding of the problem they were trying to solve, as an integral part of their evaluation process.  This, in turn, often suggested modifications of their original idea – and sometime even a quite different solution, as when Gidget’s explorations around starting thrifts shop led her to consider affiliating her organization with Goodwill (Gidget’s innovation #2).
• Doing some preliminary field-testing to further develop and better evaluate the idea:  In addition to gathering existing information, some of our subjects also tried to generate some new valuable data by trying out their idea in a small way, before committing to a larger initiative. An illustrative example is when Pat’s school of nursing started offering some professional development on forensic nursing as a way to “test” the interest in this topic, before deciding to create a business line in this area and eventually spinning off the National Forensic Nursing Institute as a separate company (Pat’s innovation #4).
• Refining initial ideas by discussing them with collaborators and mentors: Perhaps the most important take-away from the opportunity evaluation processes we observed is that our subjects did not embark in this evaluation with the goal of reaching a yes/no answer to the question of whether their original idea was worth pursuing.  Rather, they used the process, and all the information and insights they gained through it, to refine their original idea – by making modifications that would make the innovation more valuable, marketable, affordable, feasible, and overall more likely to succeed.  This element most often involved generative discussions with other trusted people – both within and outside their organization.

Table 13.2. Practices to evaluate whether the idea is worth pursuing

Based on these findings, we have created an “Opportunity Evaluation Tool” (See Appendix C) targeted specifically for the evaluation of educational innovations.  This tool is intended to guide a systematic and iterative analysis of a specific opportunity for educational innovation, with the goal not only of deciding whether that opportunity is worth pursuing, but also of identifying what additional information may be valuable to collect towards making that decision and (perhaps even more importantly) what modifications in the original idea may increase is chances of success.

Making the decision about whether or not to pursue the idea

As already mentioned in Chapter 11, it is important to note that, while undertaking their evaluation and coming to a conclusion about whether or not to pursue a specific innovation, our subjects were greatly influenced not only by their vision, but also by their overall approach to dealing with risk and resources.  Given their evaluation of “missing the boat” versus “sinking the boat” risks, as well as their confidence in their ability to manage risk, our case study subjects were more likely to decide to undertake initiatives that other educators would have considered too risky.  They also did not let lack of resources be a decisive factor in deciding whether they had the capacity to undertake the proposed innovation, but rather had the expectation and confidence that they could find those resources by using strategies they had used successfully in the past – as discussed in the Resources section of Chapter 11, and to be further revisited in this chapter when discussing practices related to gathering the resources needed to launch the innovation.  Their vision, however, ultimately played the most critical role in reaching a decision. So, in the end, their decision may have been very different from what other educators would have made based on the same information and outcomes of the evaluation process.

It is also worth noting that several of our subjects reported that they ultimately “trusted their guts” when it came to make a decision of whether to pursue the innovation they were considering. Yet it is also important to realize that their guts/instincts were “very well trained”, as they were grounded in their deep understanding of the clients’ needs, the capacity of the organization, and the environment.  It is also important to take into consideration that, by the time they came to a decision, in most instances what our subjects ended up undertaking was not exactly their original idea, but rather an innovation that had been refined as a result of what learned during the evaluation process – and as such had much greater chances of success.

Finally, we want to comment on the fact that in many occasions our subjects recognized the importance of making the decision of whether to pursue a specific innovation quickly – whether because there was a limited window of opportunity they wanted to take advantage of, or because they felt compelled to address an unmet need without delay.  This tendency may also be connected with the common decisiveness trait identified in Chapter 12.

Table 13.3. Practices to make a final decision about whether and how to pursue the innovation

 To conclude this section, we want to recognize an important limitation in our study, which may have affected the findings reported in Tables 13.1-13.3.  Because the entrepreneurial educators we studied reported mostly on innovations they did end up pursuing successfully, we do not know as much about “failed” innovations, and even less about ideas that did not even get to the stage of being pursued.  Despite this caveat, it looks like our subjects were quite good at hitting at ideas for worthwhile innovations that added value to their organization and/or the people they served.  This may have been the combined effect of (a) the ways they came up with ideas (which were all grounded in their deep understanding and commitment to the needs of their clients), and (b) their ability to effectively “weed out” less valuable ideas through the process they engaged in to evaluate the ideas they had generated.

13.2. Planning and gathering the necessary resources

 In this section we first report key insights we gained about how our subjects went about planning their initiatives, with special attention to their decision of whether and why they decided to create formal plans.  Specific practices we observed them using in specific innovations to this regard will be captured in Table 13.4.

We will then discuss how our subjects went about gathering the necessary resources to launch the innovation, building on the practices previously identified in Chapter 11 about “dealing with resources” and looking at how they specifically played out at this stage of the entrepreneurial process.  Once again we have created a table (Table 13.5) to identify concrete practices used to secure the funding, personnel, facilities, approvals, and any other resources needed to launch the initiative.

It is important to keep in mind, though, that the planning and gathering resources component of the innovations we studies were always very interconnected.  They most often took place concurrently and influenced each other – as not only the final plan ultimately determined what resources needed to be gathered, but the plan itself often went through a series of modifications as the entrepreneurial educator realized what resources were available.  It is also not always easy (or productive) to clearly separate this stage from the evaluation of the idea discussed in the previous section, as it is natural for some preliminary planning and decisions to take place as the initial idea gets refined as a result of the evaluation process, and explorations around the organization’s capacity to carry out the innovation may lead to identify and secure some initial resources (especially in term of key personnel that will be involved in the proposed innovation).

Planning for the launch of an innovation

Business courses and textbooks devote a lot of attention to developing a well-thought-out business plan.  In contrast, while all the featured innovations reported in Chapters 3-10 were indeed carefully planned out, we were surprised to notice that few of our subjects engaged in writing formal plans.  In fact, the only times when we encountered formal plans was when such plans were required to get funding (for example, when applying for grants or bidding for a contract) or approval (for example, when registering a new degree program with the state).

The nature of the formal plans our subjects wrote also depended on the specific demands of the funding agency or the entity that needed to give permission, which in turn varied considerably across types of innovations.  For example, business plans were only written when needed for new business lines by Gidget and Pat.  Grant proposal were more common, as several subjects looked at government or foundation grants for funding their projects.  In a few occasion, plans for specific innovations were also included within larger strategic plans involved the entire organization (like in the case of Pat and Rod).  “Smaller” innovations rarely required formal plans.

It is important to note, though, that the absence of written formal plans should not be taken as evidence that our subjects did not value planning.  Rather, in most cases they reported choosing not to write formal plans because it was difficult to justify the time commitment required by this task given the other demands on their time, yet they all developed careful informal plans for their own sake – as documented in their story.

Table 13.4 below lists several planning practices we were able to observe in at least one of the featured innovations reported in Chapters 3-10.  In addition to some more general planning practices, we also identified more specific practices related to minimizing risk as well as reducing costs, as we observed that these elements figured out as critical in most plans to make the desired innovation possible despite the challenges it presented.    These two sets of practices were informed by more general practices already identified and discussed in Chapter 11, when we reported findings about the case-study subjects’ practices related to managing risk and bootstrapping in particular – so we refer to those sections for more detail.

Table 13.4. Practices to develop plans

Since planning practices were not among those discussed in Chapter 11, we would like to add some comments here about a few of the practices listed in Table 13.4.  First of all, while some of the practices listed in Table 13.4 may be quite specific to the context and nature of the innovation (such as A10-Doing some pilot testing and A13-Determining governance and profit-sharing structure), the majority of the practices we identified could be applied in most situations.

It is also worth noting how the planning stage can present additional opportunities to refine the innovation idea – especially as the entrepreneurial educator works at figuring out ways to minimize risk (A7) and reduce costs (A8), although addressing new obstacles (A9) are also likely to call for some adjustments in one’s original idea. Conducting some pilots (A10 + B1) can also be very valuable at this stage – as well as during the evaluation process – to help identify and manage risk, and may also suggest further modifications to increase the proposed innovation’s chances of success.  Continuing to learn about the problem and possible solutions (A14) and seeking advice (A5) are important at this stage as well, and it may lead to additional changes.

All considered, it is also worth noting that, given their wealth of experience, our subject may also have been able to manage with more informal written plans, or even “planning in their head”.  In contrast, novice education change agents may benefit from engaging in a more formal planning process.

Gathering the resources needed to successfully launch an innovation

All of our subjects showed great creativity and resourcefulness in gathering the resources they needed to launch innovations – especially when those resources were not “currently in hand”, as it was often the case.  Often challenges related to securing resources called for modifications in the original idea and plans so as to make the innovation more feasible – as well illustrated in Lynn Gatto’s Cookie Cutter unit Lynn’s innovation #1), where she had to significantly reconceive her original unit plan when she discovered some limitations in how she could use the funds awarded to her by the grant.

The practices identified in Chapter 11 about funding specific innovations and securing the needed personnel seemed to greatly inform what our case study subjects chose to employ at this stage, although this choice was also influenced by the type of innovation they were undertaking, their context (and the funding sources available to them), as well as what resources their organization could offer.  In Table 13.5 we have listed all the specific practices we observed our subjects use to gather resources in at least one of the featured innovations at this stage, using essentially the same categories identified in Chapter 11.

Table 13.5. Practices to gather the resources needed to launch the initiative

The sheer number of specific practices we were able to identify and list in Table 13.5 is by itself an indication that gathering resources may require different strategies in different situations.

First of all, depending on the type and scope of the innovation, the amount of resources needed to launch the initiative can be very different – calling in turn for different types of strategies.  For example, at one extreme we have projects involving building new facilities (like Pat’s construction of a new wing for her school, and Ralph’s construction of the pre-school building) that require major fund-raising and/or taking up debt – even in the case of K-12 schools and colleges.  In contrast, there were several featured innovations across our case studies – mostly those including instructional innovations and changes of norms/culture – that could be accomplished with relatively little cash expenses, although they would always require time from selected people within the organization.

The context in which each entrepreneurial educator operated gave them access to different kinds of funding.   For example, CEOs and high-level leaders were able to “move around” operating funds and personnel assignments, while subjects holding different positions in the organization (like Ralph and Lynn) did not have much access to internal resources.  Also, while business entrepreneurs can use investors to gather start-up funds, they do not have access to other funding sources that are instead available only to not-for-profit organizations – and vice-versa.  For example, seeking grants was especially important for Lynn, who as a teacher could not easily access institutional funds; it is also worth noting, however, that as an individual Lynn could only apply for some small grants specifically targeted for teachers (rather than organizations) – where she was very successful.  High-needs K-12 schools, universities and many non-profit organizations have greater access to large grants from government and foundations, although even for-profit businesses may compete for some of those grants (as many government funding agencies have funds set aside for Small Business Innovation and Research grants [SBIR]).  A variation of this practice was also observed in the context of public schools, where there are special funds set aside at the district, local BOCES or even state level that individual schools can apply to finance special projects (such as for example COSER funds in New York State, which Mary used extensively).  Interestingly, we have observed that many school leaders do not always take full advantage of these opportunities – as we saw instead Mary and Ralph do.

It is also worth noting, though, creative strategies used by the subjects with less “power” within their organization – such as seeking in-kind contributions (D1), partnering (D2) and leveraging volunteers (F8) – that can be used by almost anyone else.

One type of resources that turned out to be critical to many of the featured innovations was securing the needed permissions/ approvals – both from people in position of power, and other stakeholders.  This is something that may be less important in a business context, yet it is often critical in educational settings – so it is important for entrepreneurial educators to pay special attention to it.   Several of the practices we observed had to do with good communication with the various key stakeholders about one’s vision for the innovation (H2, H3 and H5) – building on the strategies identified in Chapter 11 when discussing our case-study subjects’ practices about communicating their vision more generally.  Using one’s own social capital was also important (H6) as well as being willing to take a strong position even if it came at a personal risk (H4).  The most surprising practice we observed, though, was choosing to work quietly (H1) so as to stay “under the radar screen,” at least for enough time to be able to prove the value and feasibility of the proposed innovation; interestingly, this is one of the traits of social entrepreneurs identified by Bornstein, and all but two of our subjects demonstrated it (as reported in Chapter 12).

We also want to highlight here the importance of securing the right “project leader” at this critical stage of the process.  In the human resources section of Chapter 11 we already discussed the key role played in general by the “project leader” or “champion” in any innovation.  Interestingly, our subjects varied with respect to whether they felt that the role of project leader was so critical that they would not launch an initiative until the right project leader was secured (as explicitly mentioned by Pat and Gidget), or move on with an initiative first and then identify the project leader along the way (as it was more often the case for Mary).  Pat, in particular, was very adamant about not proceeding with an innovation unless she had secured the right project leader – as she had learned this lesson the hard way from previous experiences.  Donna also warned about the downside of bringing in a new project leader only at the implementation stage – as she realized early on that her clients needed to develop a relationship with the project leader during the planning stage, in order to feel comfortable trusting them with carrying out the project.

13.3. Implementing and monitoring the innovation

This stage of the entrepreneurial process focuses on what happens once the plans have been set and approved, and the key resources gathered, so the innovation can be officially launched.  Launching an initiative is different from what it takes to “grow its success” and sustain it over the long haul (which will discuss next as the last stage of the entrepreneurial process) and indeed presents some unique challenges.  Being able to manage those challenges well may make the difference between success and failure for any innovation – regardless of how good the idea was and how well the plans had been laid out.

This is why monitoring how the innovation is doing is particularly important at this stage and is closely connected with the implementation of the innovation itself.  It is through monitoring the implementation – especially at its launch – that an entrepreneurial educator can identify whether the desired results are being achieved, and make the necessary adjustments if this is not happening.    Monitoring is also important throughout the implementation, though, and will also inform key decisions about next steps – in particular, whether the innovation should be continued.

Even though in practice the implementation and monitoring of the initiative need to happen simultaneously, we have found it helpful to examine these two components separately – as discussed in the next two sub-sections and their relative tables.

Implementing the innovation

Before introducing the list of concrete practices related to implementing the innovation that we identified as a result of our case-studies, it is important to note that not all our subjects participated directly in the implementation of all the innovations they promoted.  While everyone was fully involved in the first two phases (coming up with and refining the idea through a rigorous evaluation, and then developing plans and gathering the needed resources) as well as in making decisions about next steps, the higher up their position in the organization, the more likely it was that they would pass the responsibility of launching and overseeing an innovation to the person they had identified as the project leader.   This was probably due to the significant time and dedicated effort required to launch an initiative well – time that many of them did not have given their other responsibilities.

Therefore, the practices listed in Table 13.6 reflect strategies we observed used in the featured innovation by either our subjects themselves, or the other people in the organization they had put in charge for this stage.

Table 13.6. Practices to implement the initiative

Looking at the practices listed in Table 13.6, the first thing that stands out is the importance of attention to details at this stage of the entrepreneurial process.  While attention to detail (one of the entrepreneurial traits identified in the literature and discussed earlier in Chapter 12) is always important, it is especially so when an initiative is first launched, as it may truly make it or break it.  Attention to detail did not only show up explicitly (see A3), but it is also embedded in almost all the other practices listed in Table 13.6.  While some of our subjects were very skilled at engaging in the details of the implementation (ex: Lynn), others appreciate the importance of attention to details but had delegated this function to trusted colleagues (ex: Pat and Ralph).

This is also the stage when problem solving (A5) played a key role and required creativity as well as “guts” on the part of the person in charge of the implementation.  Given the higher risk usually involved in the innovations undertaken by our subjects, and the fact that they were almost always under-resourced, challenges had to be expected and dealt with.  This practice is also closely connected with doing what it takes to get things done (A4) – something shown by all our subjects, as well as the successful project leaders they appointed.

Attention to bootstrapping (A6) also seemed to characterize most of the innovations we featured in Chapters 3-10 – again, as it was a necessity given the limited resources our subjects (and most educators) had to deal with.  Several of the practices identified in Table 11.4 (see Chapter 11) were utilized at this stage, depending on the nature of the innovation.  Having limited resources was also part of the reason why, whenever possible and appropriate, several of our subjects started small and then gradually increased the scope of their innovations (A11) – as seen especially in the business lines build by Pat and Gidget, but also Ron’s approach to the library renovations.  It is also important to keep in mind, though, that this approach may not work for some types of innovations – most notably, but not only, projects involving the building of new facilities.

It is also worth noting how refining the innovation is something that often continued at this stage as well – and was closely connected with monitoring.

Monitoring the implementation  

An important part of implementing an innovation is to continuously evaluate whether it is successful enough, so as to determine whether to continue it as is, modify it, stop it, or grow it.  This monitoring can – and should – occur in both formal and informal ways.

First of all, as already mentioned in Chapter 11, we noticed that one of the key reasons our subjects seemed willing to launch more “risky” initiatives was their expectation that they would closely monitor their implementation, making changes as needed.  This flexibility, along with the expectation for an iterative design and implementation, has a lot in common with an “engineering design process” – yet it is not an approach that is very common in the field of education.

Some, although not all, of our subjects also found it important to set up from the beginning some systematic ways to monitor the innovation (i.e., to measure the extent to which it was performing the way one expected and delivered the outcomes it was designed to deliver), and collected data at key point of the process to evaluate whether to continue the innovation.  For example, Donna and Pat reported setting out in advance some quantifiable “measures of success” and targets, systematically collecting data to check whether the set targets were met over time, and being ready to stop the initiative if those targets were not met so as to ensure that they would not lose too much money.  Lynn, who personally implemented all her innovations, did not need such quantified targets, but rather was constantly observing her students’ reactions to the innovative learning experiences she had planned and was ready to change course quickly if she did not get the responses she had expected. At the same time, this was never a mechanical decision, as the subject still used his/her judgment and vision to interpret the results and decide whether the innovation needed more time to prove its value, or whether there may have been unexpected factors at work that need to be addressed before making a final decision.  The story of Pat’s Master in Nursing Leadership (Pat’s innovation #2) is especially interesting, as it did not initial get the expected results, yet Pat and her team decided to give it more time  – and their decision proved to be the right one.  The same happened with Gidget’s Goodwill stores initiative (Gidget’s initiative #2).

Despite these two notable counterexamples, it seems indeed critical to be able to stop an initiative if it does not meet a set minimum level of performance, as doing otherwise may mean continuing to lose time and resources that could be better spent in other ventures (especially important when resources are scarse).  Indeed, knowing when to stop an innovation that is not working, and acting on this realization, is as important as expanding successful ones – and likely much more challenging, especially in the field of education!  Yet, it was not easy to get our subjects to talk about this kind of situation – although we do have a few examples in our case studies, most notably Pat’s decision to terminate the traditional undergraduate nursing program (Pat’s innovation #1) and Mary’s decision not to further pursue her initial push for differentiated instruction (Mary’s innovation #2).

Table 13.7. Practices to monitor the initiative

13.4. Ensuring sustainability and bigger impact as appropriate

A common measure of success for an educational innovation is the extent of its impact.  As discussed in Chapter 12, there are some one-time initiatives that have high-impact for the organization and/or the people they serve – such as Lynn’s field trip to Kentucky or the programs Pat launched to address very specific and timely problems.  While recognizing these notable exceptions, most innovations are intended to live on; in other words, an educational innovation that fizzles out quickly is not usually considered successful.  Therefore, it is important to examine what our subjects did to ensure that their innovations were sustained over time – whenever this seemed appropriate.

The drive to achieve the greatest impact which characterizes social entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial educators alike – as discussed in Chapters 11 and 12 – also calls for expanding and/or replicating successful innovations. So in this section we will also look at how our subjects evaluated whether and how the successful innovations they launched could be expanded and/or replicated, and what strategies they used to do so.

The considerations reported in this section assume that (a) the type of innovation undertaken is of a kind that can be continued and/or expanded, and (b) its launch was successful and deemed worthy of continuing and/or expanding.

Ensuring the innovation’s long-term sustainability

Even the most valuable innovations can die once their start-up funds are exhausted; so a critical goal for several of our subjects was to ensure their innovations’ fiscal stability over time.  Pat and Gidget, and to some extent also Rod, often achieved this goal by ensuring a revenue stream connected with the innovation – whether it was tuition associated to a new instructional program, or other revenues.  This by itself may not be enough, though, as to continue the revenue stream the innovation also needs to continue to be competitive over time – which in turn requires to stay at the cutting edge through continuous innovation (something Donna, in particular, was especially aware of and vocal about).

Several of our subjects also identified changes in leadership as another common threat to the long-term sustainability of the innovations they launched.  It is worth noting that such changes in leadership need to be expected and planned for, as not only people will eventually leave their organization (as they retire or take another job), but also because as entrepreneurial educators conceive of new possible innovations, they will not have the time to continue to run all their old ones.  Appointing a new project leader or “champion” that can lead the innovation is probably one of the most critical steps to sustain that innovation – and one that will likely need to be repeated over time!  Interestingly, while an education leader can do so for specific initiatives while still in charge, most education institutions are not set up for (and do not seem to value) the idea of planning an exit strategy for the leader of the organization – and this can be problematic to the continuation of innovations that leader may had been successful at establishing.

Another strategy we observed some of our subjects use to ensure long-term sustainability included “institutionalizing” the innovation – that is, making it an integral part of the “system” and everyday operations of the organization, so that eliminating it would cause significant disruption.  This was the case, for example, for innovations that involved changes in structure that were sustained for a certain period of time (as it happens for successful “systemic initiatives”).  Pat also purposefully tried to create internal incentives to keep the innovation going; for example, she believed that the revenues added to the school of nursing by the new business lines she established would make it very difficult to close them, even if a new leader did not otherwise appreciate their value – and she was proved right!

It is also interesting to note that, at least in one instance (the National Institute for Forensic Nursing, Pat’s innovation #4), long-term sustainability was secured by spinning off an independent company, rather than continuing that enterprise within the original organization.

All these different ways to achieve sustainability are summarized in Table 13.8.

Table 13.8. Practices to ensure long-term sustainability (when appropriate)

Increasing the innovation’s impact

Assuming that the decision has been made that a specific innovation was successful and worth continuing, the next question is whether – and if so, how – it could be expanded.  While this question may not be relevant for some innovations – for example, changes in practices or norms, as well as one-time high-impact initiatives – in most cases the desire to achieve the biggest impact and benefits to the organization and/or the people it serves leads to seeking some form of “growth” for the successful innovation.  And while many of the entrepreneurial practiced about growth identified in Chapter 11 will inform these decisions, it is also important to note that the concrete practices employed to “grow” a specific innovation will likely present some important differences.   

Looking across our case studies, we noticed that the growth or expansion of a specific innovation could take a few different forms.  It might involve increasing the scope and reach of the original initiative – for example, adding more cohorts to an instructional program (as Pat did with her successful programs once launched) or undertaking the renovations of more rooms within the library (as in the case of Ron).  Or it might involve providing additional products or services in a similar way – for example, as Gidget did when looked for other products that blind people could help manufacture, after her successful experience with producing Post-its.  Increasing the impact of an innovation may also be realized by empowering others to replicate it – whether it is through publicizing it through publications or workshops, or even by creating a franchise or spin off.

The various concrete practices we observed our subjects use across various innovations are listed in Table 13.9.

Table 13.9. Practices to increase the initiatives’ impact (when appropriate)

13.5. In-depth look at the practices used in a specific innovation

To show how the practices we identified in the previous tables may play out in practice, in this section we selected one of the innovations featured in our case-studies and “annotated it” by recording on the right side the practices that the subject used at each stage of the entrepreneurial process.  Each of these practices are identified in the same way as they were listed in the tables related to each stage of the entrepreneurial process.

For this illustration we chose Pat’s development of the Master in Nursing Leadership (Pat’s innovation #2) – as first of all it is one of the featured innovations where the use of several practices is quite evident in the narrative, and furthermore developing new programs is one of the most common types of innovations in education.  The same analysis was done for all of the other featured innovations across the eight case-study, and provided the basis to identify the list of practices collected in the tables included earlier in this chapter.  All the annotated stories can be accessed in the Stories section of the companion website.

Example of annotated story: Developing a new program in Nursing Leadership (Pat’s innovation #2)

We hope that this “annotated story” has not only helped provide further illustration of some of the specific practices we identified in this chapter, but it will also suggest the value for readers to engage in a similar analysis on their own for other innovation stories – those made available in this collection, and/or others they may have identified and are interested in better understanding how they “worked”.

13.6. Concluding thoughts about the entrepreneurial process

We believe that the findings reported in this chapter contribute further evidence in support of the claim that entrepreneurial educators and traditional entrepreneurs have similar overall approaches to the entrepreneurial process.  At the same time, many of the practices identified in this chapter are specific to both the educational context and the types of innovation undertaken.

We can also observe that the general practices identified in Chapter 11 about vision, opportunities, risk, resources and growth overall informed how our subjects approached the process of initiating and carrying out an innovation.  Yet these mindsets and practices also had different relevance and translated into somewhat different concrete practices at particular stages of the entrepreneurial process.  Furthermore, what practices our subjects ended up using for a particular innovation also depended on the type of that innovation as well as other elements related to their context.

Another key take-away from this analysis is the realization that any “innovation idea” gets refined at essentially each stage of the entrepreneurial process, and that this refinement process is critical to its ultimate success. Indeed, innovation ideas do not just come “fully formed” but rather get shaped – and sometimes even radically transformed – as an integral part of the entrepreneurial process.  The evaluation stage is when one most often begins to realize problems and limitations that may create serious impediments to realizing the original idea; these realizations, in turn, will likely suggest some modifications of the original idea to avoid or at least minimize those problems.  As one proceeds planning and gathering resources to launch the initiative, other problems and limitations are likely to be encountered, calling for further modifications; in particular, the lack of resources originally deemed necessary, or conversely the discovery of some unexpected resources, may suggest new and better ways of doing things.  As one actually engages in implementing the plan – even the best thought-out ones! – unexpected events and opportunities as well as new constraints are likely to emerge, requiring a revision of the original plans. Finally, as one moves to consider if and how to grow a successful initiative, any expansion is likely to require some changes to adapt to new contexts, audiences and/or applications.  This requires not being wedded to the original idea – or way to realize that idea – and keeping an open mind throughout the process, something our subjects were masters at.