| Course | EDO 812 Innovation and Entrepreneurship |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 8 |
| Paper type | Doctoral innovation leadership plan |
| Length | About 1,060 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for EDO 812 Module 8
Three Years to a Habit: An Innovation Leadership Plan for a Land-Grant Extension Service, Built on Four Problems
Student Name
Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University
EDO 812: Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Three Years to a Habit: An Innovation Leadership Plan for a Land-Grant Extension Service, Built on Four Problems
Over seven modules, this course has examined innovation and entrepreneurship at Plains State Extension, an invented land-grant outreach service with 84 county offices. The analyses produced a working definition of innovation, a warning about architectural change, a diffusion strategy, a redesigned incubator, an internal venture pathway, changes to my own leadership behavior and a hybrid structure for exploration. Taken separately, they are recommendations. This paper turns them into a three-year plan, written from my role as assistant director for program innovation. None of the agency, my position or the numbers are real.
Four Problems
A widely cited analysis of innovation management (Van de Ven, 1986) argued that leaders face four central problems. The human problem is managing attention: people and organizations become habituated to existing routines and fail to notice needs for new ideas until a crisis forces them. The process problem is managing new ideas into good currency: ideas must be developed, championed and connected to the interests of those who will adopt them before they are accepted. The structural problem is managing part-whole relationships: innovation draws on many specialized units and people, and their parts must be coordinated into a whole that works. The strategic problem is institutional leadership: leaders must create a context, including the infrastructure, values and external relationships, that supports innovation over time.
The framework serves the plan well because it reveals a gap. The earlier modules addressed attention, process and structure. None addressed institutional leadership beyond the service: the university's budget office, the legislature that funds extension and the national system of which the service is part.
The Plan by Problem
| Problem | Actions drawn from earlier modules | New actions | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attention | Spring field days and demonstration farms that make needs visible; listening sessions in counties | Annual scan of farmer and family needs with county advisory councils | Assistant director |
| Ideas into currency | Venture pathway with sponsors; incubator experiments with buyers | Showcase of proven pilots for county directors each fall | District leaders |
| Part and whole | Hybrid lab with rotating county staff; county partners for every lab project | Map links before approving architectural changes | Lab director |
| Institutional leadership | Protected 5% exploration budget | Two-page impact briefs for legislators; partnership with two neighboring states' services | Director, with assistant director |
Implementing the First Major Adoption
The first large innovation under the plan is a digital advisory system that lets farmers and families send questions by text or app and routes them to their county educator first, specialists second, as redesigned in Module 2. Implementation is where many such systems fail.
Klein and Sorra (1996) argued that implementation effectiveness, the consistency and quality of targeted members' use of an innovation, depends on two conditions. The first is an organization's climate for implementation, members' shared perceptions that use of the innovation is expected, supported and rewarded, built through training, user support, time and incentives. The second is innovation-values fit, the extent to which use of the innovation fits members' values. When climate is strong but fit is poor, members comply grudgingly; when both are strong, they use the innovation with commitment.
For the advisory system, the climate is weak today: educators have had no training, no time set aside and no recognition for answering digital questions. Values fit is mixed: many educators value face-to-face relationships and fear the system will replace them. The implementation design therefore builds climate through training and protected time and builds fit by keeping the county educator first in line for every question, so the system extends relationships rather than replacing them.
Edmondson et al. (2001) studied sixteen hospitals adopting a new, minimally invasive cardiac surgery technique that required surgical teams to change long-established routines. Teams that implemented it successfully had leaders who framed the technology as a team learning challenge rather than a technical add-on, selected team members deliberately, held practice sessions before the first real cases and met regularly to reflect on what had happened. Teams whose leaders treated the change as routine adoption struggled, regardless of their hospitals' resources or prestige.
The rollout follows those lessons. Each district will introduce the system as a shared learning project, starting with a pilot team of volunteers, holding practice sessions with sample questions before going live and meeting twice a month through the first quarter of use to review difficult questions and adjust routing.
Three-Year Timeline
| Year | Milestones |
|---|---|
| 1 | Venture pathway and protected budget in place; lab staffed with two rotating county educators; advisory system piloted in two districts; demonstration farms selected |
| 2 | Advisory system in all six districts; first ventures reviewed at two years; incubator redesign evaluated with its first cohort; partnership with neighboring services signed |
| 3 | Review of the whole plan; ventures folded into programs or closed; budget share reconsidered by the board |
Measuring Progress
The measures follow the definition of innovation from Module 1, which requires measurable value to the people served.
If the share of innovations still in use after two years falls below target, the plan will shift emphasis from launching new work to sustaining what exists, the gap Greenhalgh and colleagues identified in Module 3.
| Measure | Target by year 3 |
|---|---|
| New programs or methods launched under the definition | 12 |
| Share still in use two years after launch | At least 60% |
| Questions answered through the advisory system, with county educator first | 70% routed locally |
| Farmers and families reporting a decision changed by a new program | Measured in follow-up surveys of each program |
| Educators with an exploration objective completed | 80% |
My Role and Its Limits
As assistant director I control the venture pathway, the lab's agenda and my own behavior, but not the budget policy, the legislature or the university. The fourth problem therefore depends on persuading the director and the dean, which the impact briefs and the partnership are designed to help with.
Conclusion
Van de Ven's four problems turn the course's separate analyses into one plan and reveal the missing work of institutional leadership. Klein and Sorra show that implementation needs both a supportive climate and fit with educators' values, and Edmondson, Bohmer and Pisano show that teams adopt new technology best when they treat it as learning. With owners, milestones and measures tied to value for the people served, the plan aims to make innovation a habit at the service within three years.
References
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 685-716. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094828
Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1055-1080. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9704071863
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590-607. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590
What the EDO 812 Module 8 instructions ask for
The closing module of EDO 812 calls for an innovation leadership plan, and students usually must synthesize theories from the course into a practical, multi-year plan for an organization. Follow the Module 8 instructions in your classroom; the service and plan here are made up. Summarize what earlier analyses found. Organize the plan around a recognized framework for managing innovation. Design how at least one innovation will be implemented, drawing on implementation research. Set a timeline with milestones and owners. Name the indicators that will show progress and what you will change if they lag, citing the scholarship it draws on in APA 7 form.
How the EDO 812 Module 8 example is put together
The plan draws on every earlier module: the working definition from Module 1, the architectural risk from Module 2, network-based diffusion from Module 3, the redesigned incubator from Module 4, the venture pathway from Module 5, three leadership changes from Module 6 and the hybrid structure from Module 7. Van de Ven (Management Science) organizes the plan into four problems, each with actions and owners. Klein and Sorra (Academy of Management Review) guide the first major adoption, the digital advisory system, by checking climate and values fit before rollout. Edmondson, Bohmer and Pisano (Administrative Science Quarterly) shape how county teams learn the new system: framed as learning, with practice sessions and team debriefs. A three-year timeline sets milestones, and a measurement framework tracks innovations launched, adoption, sustained use after two years and value to the people served.
Where the marks sit in the EDO 812 Module 8 rubric
Final plans in this course are graded on integration, practicality and grounding in theory. This example organizes everything under Van de Ven's four problems, which turns a collection of earlier recommendations into one coherent plan and reveals what is still missing, notably institutional leadership with the university and legislature. The implementation design applies Klein and Sorra's model and Edmondson, Bohmer and Pisano's findings to a specific adoption, showing how theory changes actual steps. Owners, milestones and measures make the plan accountable. The measurement framework follows Module 1's definition, so the plan judges innovation by value to people served, not by novelty or activity.
EDO 812 Module 8 help: mistakes that cost marks
Innovation plans often read as lists of initiatives without a logic connecting them. Organize the plan with a framework so each action answers a known problem. Another weakness is stopping at adoption decisions; implementation is where most innovations fail, so design it with research in mind. Include owners and dates. Measure outcomes that matter, such as sustained use and value to the people served, not just the number of new ideas. Plan for what will change if measures disappoint. Finally, acknowledge your own role and limits, since a plan that depends on authority you lack needs a strategy for winning support.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More EDO 812 and Doctor of Education sample papers
- EDO 812 Module 1: Defining Innovation and Entrepreneurship
- EDO 812 Module 2: Theories of Innovation
- EDO 812 Module 3: Diffusion and Adoption of Innovations
- EDO 812 Module 4: Entrepreneurship and Opportunity
- EDO 812 Module 5: Corporate Entrepreneurship
- EDO 812 Module 6: Leadership for Innovation
- EDO 812 Module 7: Systems and Structures That Sustain Innovation
- EDN 816 Module 8: Financial Case for a Staffing Decision
- EDO 810 Module 6: Power, Politics and Networks
- EDN 814 Module 8: Future of Nursing Accreditation
- EDN 810 Module 3: Evaluating Resources and Capabilities
EDO 812 Module 8 questions, answered
What does EDO 812 Module 8 usually ask for?
Aspen's EDO 812 ends with an innovation leadership plan, so synthesizing the course's theories into a practical multi-year plan for an organization is typical. Your Module 8 prompt sets the scope.
What are the central problems in managing innovation?
Van de Ven named four: managing attention, turning new ideas into accepted practice, managing part-whole relationships and providing institutional leadership.
Why do innovations fail during implementation?
Klein and Sorra argued implementation succeeds only when the climate supports use and the innovation fits members' values.
Where can I find a free EDO 812 Module 8 sample paper?
At no charge, on this page: a three-year innovation leadership plan for an invented extension service, organized by Van de Ven's four problems.
How should leaders introduce a new technology to teams?
Edmondson, Bohmer and Pisano found teams adopted new surgical technology best when leaders framed it as learning and teams practiced and reflected together.