WIRE – group of independent consultants contracted by WKKF to do the cluster evaluation of the initiative (large scale evaluation of various components of WKKF’s projects).

Philosophy of WIRE

• Iterative process
• Formative evaluation
• Interactive in nature
• Learning based
• Not prescriptive
• Will lead to a process centered evaluation workshop
• Will do site visits to projects
  

Logic Model (Handout)

• Group will develop the components of the model today.
• Logic connotes definite meanings for different individuals. It may not be the best choice of wording for the model. Social scientists have some trouble with the term.
• The logic model is within WKKF’s requirements but the group can rename the model after working with it and learning together.
• Notion is that the farther one moves to the outer rings within the model the more specific the components and the ability to measure them.
• It has been rather difficult to develop common evaluation measurements across the 12 projects. The logic model may help the group look at some common aspects of their projects but still allow the fluidity of the projects to occur.
• Point of reference is each project but WIRE’s role is to pull the commonalities together for the cluster evaluation data. This model is to identify the common core components / benchmarks across all projects.
• There seems to be no feedback mechanism within the logic model – at least not visually.
• The model needs to have some three dimensional loops that connect the various levels within the model.
• Maybe the model could be visualized like a shuttlecock from badmitton – the shape of the model changes throughout time. Sometimes the insitutional change is on the inside (moving towards you) and other times it is on the outside (as it moves away from you).
• Developing Leadership Capacity may be the best component to look across all projects for commonalities since that is what we are all about.
• Reminder that this is the "assessment" model for the project not the model for how we accomplish our goals within our projects.
• Words like influence and outcomes conjure up specific thoughts about dependent and independent variables
• Date each iteration of the model so we can follow the evolution and fluidity.
• WIRE’s role is not to get involved with each project – they are conducting the cluster evaluation. How can we honor the integrity of what each project is doing but at the same time find those commonalities across the projects.
  

"The WKKF wants to raise the capacity of academic leaders to (effect) better influence institutional change within (Higher Education) or Land Grant Universities (and their partners) through more collaboration, (resulting in) a deeper relevance, greater responsiveness to societal expectations, wider stakeholder engagement and involvement, (and) clearer assurance of sustainability, and increased positive impact."

What are the indicators that this objective is being achieved?

• Change "Land Grant Universities" to "Higher Education"
• Should we define each of the variables – more collaboration, a deeper relevance, etc?
• "Academic leaders" conjures up the notion of current leadership within the university and not future leaders or collective leadership that includes faculty, students, staff, external stakeholders.
• "To effect" rather than "better influence"…
• "To effect change" suggests that one needs to be engaged in the change process.
• Delete "increased positive impact" since it is redundant with the previous statements.
• Do not need to use "through more collaboration" since "Land Grant Universities and their partners" connotes collaboration. Not agreement on this suggestion.
• Where is the "civic participation and skills"? There is no indication of those outside of higher education.
• Maybe delete "to raise the capacity of academic leaders".
• WKKF – "developing leadership capacity" needs to be included so that insitutions are more relevant and responsive to the communities needs.
• Break into two sentences – first sentence to indicate what we want to happen and the second sentence to indicate the "how".
• Maybe allow each project to work on the statement to best fit their project’s needs / goals. This would be a good activity for each project to do even if we don’t come to some commonalities today.
  

Key Elements for Overall Statement

Group 1

• Leadership
• Leaders in higher education and communities
• Collaboration – working together - engagement
• Responding to stakeholders issues and concerns
• Engaged communities and institutions
• Contributing to institutional change
• Qualities
• Positive
• Forward thinking
• Inclusive
• Higher education not just Land Grant
  

Group 2

• Collaboration as both ends and means
• Change the way we operate using inside and outside influence
• Responsive to community needs
• Change the way we think about leadership
  

Group 3

• Intra academy(s) leadership
• Inter institutional collaboration
• Development of leadership capacity (throughout)
• Capacity for change
• Content of change effort – project or institution specific
• Sense making effort - "why" – change for what
• Semantics "change ____ to ____ / why
• To what end?
• Process – expanding "lens" inclusivity and diversity.
  

Group 4

• WKKF strives to build leadership capacity among higher education and their partners through collaboration and learning to be responsive to communities needs.
  

During Phase I, WKKF wants to build leadership capacity to effect / influence institutional change in Land Grant Universities and partners through more collaboration resulting in such things as:

• A deeper relevance
• greater responsiveness to community expectations
• wider stakeholder engagement and involvement, and

a clearer assurance of sustainability"

About Kellogg LINC Workshop Series  Discussion Groups  Resources

Copyright 1998 WorkSpan