Leading Educational Institutions Training Course

Participants can define a change problem using credible evidence and root-cause analysis.

• Problem statements separated from symptoms, assumptions and preferred solutions
• Baseline evidence drawn from attainment, retention, attendance and service data
• Root-cause analysis using five whys and cause-and-effect diagrams
• Process mapping reveals delays, duplication, handoffs and learner pain points
• Disaggregating evidence by learner group, programme, campus and demographic factors
• Diagnostic findings converted into a concise current-state assessment

Participants can assess whether their institution has the capacity and conditions to undertake change.

• Readiness assessment covering leadership, capability, resources, culture and systems
• Change saturation assessed across concurrent initiatives and academic calendar demands
• Staff workload, union agreements and timetable constraints examined early
• Digital maturity and data quality tested before technology-enabled changes
• Capacity gaps prioritised by risk, urgency and effect on implementation
• Readiness findings used to sequence scope, pace and support

Participants can write an evidence-based case for change that secures informed sponsorship.

• Case for change connects evidence, urgency, options and expected benefits
• Problem consequences expressed for learners, staff, quality and institutional performance
• Strategic alignment tested against institutional plans, regulatory duties and values
• Options appraisal compares cost, feasibility, impact and implementation risk
• Benefits statements distinguish intended outcomes from planned activities and outputs
• Executive summary written for governors, sponsors and senior leadership teams

Participants can establish leadership roles and sponsor behaviours that support sustained change.

• Visible sponsorship behaviours that demonstrate priority, commitment and accountability
• Leadership coalition selected across academic, operational and learner-facing functions
• Distributed leadership assigns authority close to implementation decisions
• Sponsor communications address trade-offs, uncertainty and non-negotiable requirements
• Escalation routes distinguish operational issues from strategic decisions
• Leadership alignment checks prevent contradictory messages and competing priorities

Participants can apply Kotter’s process to organise an institutional change programme.

• Kotter’s urgency stage grounded in credible institutional performance evidence
• Guiding coalition membership balanced across authority, expertise and credibility
• Change vision expressed in observable future teaching and service practices
• Communication actions repeated through formal, informal and digital channels
• Barriers removed through decisions, resources, policy changes and coaching
• Short-term wins selected for learner value and staff confidence
• New practices anchored through induction, appraisal and quality assurance

Participants can prioritise stakeholders and design appropriate engagement approaches.

• Stakeholder mapping identifies influence, interest, impact and likely response
• Learner voice gathered through representative groups, surveys and listening sessions
• Families, employers and community partners assessed for change implications
• Staff segments differentiated by role, exposure, capability and concerns
• Regulators and governing bodies engaged through evidence-based reporting
• Engagement plans specify purpose, owner, channel, timing and feedback route

Participants can produce a communications plan that creates clarity and maintains trust.

• Audience messages answer why, what, when, support and expected contribution
• Message maps maintain consistency across leaders, departments and campuses
• Two-way communication channels capture questions, rumours and implementation feedback
• Town halls, briefings and team meetings matched to audience needs
• Difficult messages communicate constraints, decisions and unresolved issues honestly
• Communications calendar aligned with milestones, term dates and decision points

Participants can identify sources of resistance and select proportionate response strategies.

• Resistance diagnosed as loss, uncertainty, disagreement, mistrust or capacity pressure
• ADKAR awareness and desire assessed through targeted staff conversations
• Coaching questions surface concerns without dismissing legitimate professional judgement
• Objections categorised as information gaps, design flaws or resource constraints
• Influencers recruited to test messages and model desired practices
• Conflict escalation handled through agreed protocols, evidence and respectful dialogue

Participants can define a workable future state for people, processes and services.

• Future-state design specifies learner experience, staff practice and service standards
• Operating model choices clarify central, departmental and campus responsibilities
• Service blueprints connect learner journeys with frontstage and backstage processes
• Policy, procedure and workflow changes documented before implementation begins
• Accessibility, inclusion and safeguarding requirements embedded in redesigned services
• Design assumptions recorded for testing during pilots and early delivery

Participants can create a phased implementation roadmap with realistic dependencies and milestones.

• Work breakdown structure converts change scope into manageable delivery components
• Dependencies mapped across curriculum, systems, staffing, procurement and approvals
• Implementation phases aligned with academic terms, enrolment cycles and examinations
• Milestones define decisions, deliverables, readiness checks and transition points
• Pilot selection balances representativeness, risk, capability and learning value
• Contingency plans address delayed approvals, staff turnover and system failures

Participants can establish governance arrangements that support timely decisions and oversight.

• RACI matrix assigns responsible, accountable, consulted and informed roles
• Steering group terms define membership, authority, cadence and decisions
• Decision log records options, evidence, approvals and rationale
• Programme reporting separates progress, risks, issues, decisions and benefits
• Academic governance integrated with operational project governance arrangements
• Assurance reviews test readiness before major implementation gates

Participants can plan the people, budget and professional learning needed for adoption.

• Resource plan estimates staff time, budget, technology and specialist support
• Capability assessment identifies knowledge, skills and confidence required for change
• Professional learning pathways combine briefing, demonstration, practice and coaching
• Train-the-trainer arrangements build internal delivery capacity and local ownership
• Workload mitigations protect teaching quality during implementation periods
• Recruitment, procurement and partner dependencies incorporated into delivery plans

Participants can manage change risks while protecting learners, staff and institutional compliance.

• Risk register captures cause, event, consequence, owner and treatment
• Safeguarding impact considered when changing learner contact or reporting processes
• Data protection risks assessed for new systems and information flows
• Equality impact assessment identifies unintended barriers for protected learner groups
• Control measures tested through readiness reviews and implementation checkpoints
• Issue management distinguishes immediate resolution from longer-term risk reduction

Participants can define measures that track implementation, adoption and institutional benefits.

• Benefits map links change activities to outputs, outcomes and strategic goals
• Leading indicators monitor readiness, participation, competence and early adoption
• Lagging indicators track attainment, retention, satisfaction, cost and quality
• Baseline measures established before pilots, rollout and policy implementation
• Data collection responsibilities assigned across academic and service teams
• Benefits reviews trigger corrective action when outcomes fall below expectations

Participants can use PDSA cycles to test, learn from and improve change interventions.

• PDSA cycles structure small-scale testing before wider institutional rollout
• Plan stage states prediction, measures, participants and test conditions
• Do stage records delivery deviations, observations and immediate lessons
• Study stage compares results with predictions and baseline evidence
• Act stage decides adaptation, wider testing, standardisation or discontinuation
• Learning logs preserve evidence for future teams and governance reviews

Participants can embed changed practices in institutional systems, routines and expectations.

• Standard operating procedures updated to reflect new responsibilities and workflows
• Performance objectives reinforce required leadership and staff behaviours
• Induction materials introduce new practices to incoming staff and learners
• Quality assurance cycles verify consistency beyond initial implementation success
• Communities of practice spread effective methods between departments and campuses
• Recognition mechanisms reinforce contributions without masking unresolved problems

Participants can build, review and present a complete institutional change plan for a defined priority.

• Change portfolio integrates diagnosis, case, stakeholders, roadmap and governance
• Evidence base tested against learner outcomes, institutional priorities and constraints
• Implementation plan reviewed for dependencies, capacity, risks and decision gates
• Communications and engagement actions checked against stakeholder needs and concerns
• Measures, benefits reviews and PDSA cycles incorporated into delivery governance
• Senior leadership presentation communicates recommendation, trade-offs and required decisions