# data[].attributes.body
Experience/experts in:
- knowledge codification and management
- data analysis and reporting
- project management (of the processes we use to share gain and share insights with clients)
- external (from our team) facing relationship building and management

Tool
- easily accessible and user friendly Knowledge management system
-clear opinion on what our purpose/strategy/framework is when working with clients (ie. providing recommendations, follow through with consulting, etc.. or whatever we decide)
-

Kat

# data[].attributes.body
I would say is with regions (EDS/LTs) are our greatest leverage point for impact. Specifically sharing meaningful insights about their impact and helping them translate those insights into action AND maybe even followed up with some strategic consulting/coaching/accountability to help ensure execution and integration.

I think here is opportunity with specific National teams that are potentially high leverage partners to help answer critical org learning questions - ie. CLE.
Kat

# data[].attributes.body
I honestly don't have a fully formed idea on this, but from the Impact Review perspective, i don't know if we should be doing the deep data analysis work that we currently do. I think the value add of the analysis, for regions, is still in question given how much time it takes. Overall, it makes me wonder whether the in-depth data analysis and reporting portion of the work should live within the IR process versus having the data provided to us and then us leveraging that  in our work

Kat

# data[].attributes.body
Is to help our organization learn from key insights about our impact/work. Our work is to collect, codify, manage & disseminate (with the right structures), and help translate knowledge into actionable practice. By doing this we help foster a culture learning within our org that helps us remain agile throughout any external shifts in the educational landscape.
Kat

# data[].attributes.body
1. Strong at the tools and resources we share. This is small, but we really can help folks by building their capacity to learn on small projects. We need to get better at having things that we can share with folks to help them learn on their own.
2. Surfacing actionable insights.
-GP

# data[].attributes.body
I'm with Christian. I think there's a time where projects may take a while to generate insights and that's okay. I think the question to ask is around the "dynamic" part. If we're starting a six-month project, will those insights be needed in six-months? If not, then I think we needn't pursue it.
- GP

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that we support teams and regions to:
1. answer high-impact questions
2. build their capacity to learn
3. help surface actionable insights within and across context
- Gershwin

# data[].attributes.body
Reacting to the matriculation PLC example at left, I think we need to be more strategic about what we choose to learn about/how/why. My first thought here was, why wouldn't Julie/the admissions team do this? Do we know what they are already doing in this space, etc. The team actually has a matric manager group with a website, trainings, calls, weekly email blasts, etc., so that would be a space I actually would say we should NOT lean in. My point here is: we can/should do more to identify our UNIQUE value proposition & how we can learn with/from other teams as well as lead our own learning cycles/projects :)
Steph

# data[].attributes.headline
become more comfortable w/ sharing next steps/recommendations

# data[].attributes.subject
become more comfortable w/ sharing next steps/recommendations

# data[].attributes.body
One of the value adds that our team has is that we have a wealth and breadth of experiences that lead us to have a unique expertise. Given that, we should focus more on finding the sweet spot between telling what happened and making "so, now what" recommendations. I imagine that spot will look different, depending on the stakeholder's needs.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think we should be taking on many projects where are primary role is to be the project manager. That's not the best use of our skill set and time. This means that we'll need to be crystal clear with stakeholders about what role we will play in each project. This may mean having more formal agreements in place before the work begins.
-Christian

# data[].attributes.body
On one hand, I agree with the point others have made about not taking on projects that take a long time to generate insights.  However, there are instances where insights take a while to surface... that is the nature of research. I'd caution us to take into the potential impact of a project, even if the insights don't come quickly as we would like.
-Christian

# data[].attributes.body
Folks are most appreciative of our work when we.... help them make sense out of chaos, improve their capacity (not just asking them for stuff, but doing things that make their job easier for them - this includes connecting them to others/resources/etc), makes accessible insights/learnings such that they know it exists and how to use it to inform decisions/strategy.

-Jen

# data[].attributes.body
Anything we're not uniquely positioned to do and/or that doesn't have potential for high-impact :).  (that should be easy, right?!?)

Since there are so many different folks with learning roles in the org, I suspect there are ways to coordinate with them to ensure that - for example, Program Partners take on certain learning communities.

- Jen

# data[].attributes.body
(1) We have the unique position of being able to see across regions (and other national teams) to be able to (a) identify trends, biggest areas of need, etc, (b) act as a connector to folks (random example, if folks wanted to learn more about matriculation, we could create a cross-regional PLC-like group that could do rapid cycles of learning and improvement during that time period).
(2) We have unique expertise, were we can "share" that expertise at different levels such as through light-lift thought-partnerships (where maybe we do a lot of this during the strategic planning portion of the school year) and heavier lifts such as learning projects that we uniquely have the skills to do.

On a side, but related note.  I think we need to be more strategic about what we are doing and when during the school year.  This will help us be (hopefully) be more responsive to regional needs.  A lot of our work is cyclical so if we can identify what's top of mind for regions at what time, thereby allowing us to focus on that when they need it.  These are random examples to try to illustrate the point, but if we know folks want our thought-partnership during strategic planning, perhaps we set up a system to be able to provide that during the spring; this would also be a great way to identify potential short-term PLC/learning communities around a particular sticky points (e.g., matriculation, development, etc).

- Jen

# data[].attributes.body
Overall, I see our unique value add as identifying and catalyzing learning on the org's most pressing questions so that we more rapidly make progress towards our near-term priorities (e.g., breakthrough results) and long-term vision. I believe this learning needs to happen at different levels and scopes, where some of that is super high-level (e.g., establishing a PoV),  some cross-regional (e.g., PCLs), regional (e.g., IRs)/national (e.g., Institute learning agenda), and individually (e.g., primarily through light-touch thought-partnership/consulting, creating tools to support others learn).
In addition to those areas we are most unique, I believe OWLS broadly is charged with supporting building the org's learning capacity. This particularly lends itself to cross-OWLS priorities such as working with our "adult learning" friends (in quotes since don't know their new subteam name!) to create a suite of learning tools for the org.
- Jen

# data[].attributes.body
I think we can flush out our post-review process even more (maybe start it in-region) to support recommendations. I think that can be leveraging the review team, supporting the region in design thinking, connecting with broader org and ecosystem resources, etc. - Robert

# data[].attributes.body
I think our greatest impact is in working with regions and ppl who work directly with regions (i.e. partners, HFE, Andrew mandel, etc). Our work can be the bridge to the best practices that are happening across the org.
- Sara

# data[].attributes.body
I think our ultimate purpose is to help regions understand their impact and communicate those learnings across the org. I do believe we are a valued add to OWLS and to the org. We provide internal insights and perspectives that are deeply sought after and used to formulate thinking around other areas (i.e strategic direction, TOA, etc).
-Sara

# data[].attributes.body
I think that pretty much sums it up. Only other thing I'd add is that I think we have to be great at building champions and having a stellar reputation in the org. Ppl will need to be vulnerable and open to learning from us, open to us sharing insights w/ others, etc. All of that takes some cultural capital in the org. Ppl have to value what we do, trust that it's going to be an excellent, worthwhile use of time, and encourage others to engage w/ us as well.
Niah

# data[].attributes.body
I don't really have anything new to add. I agree w/ the points made abt not pursuing projects that take a really long time given how quickly things change and about projects where project mgt becomes a huge time suck. My caution to us making huge deviations from the questions we ask in a review or why we dig into certain Qs is I think we have to decide is Impact Reviews for a region or for the org.  I think Impact Reviews came out of need to have a pulse on what was happening across our network. Not to hold regions accountable to certain outcomes, but to provide a window for other regions and national teams who don't have a line of sight into what's happening in individual regions. I think deciding to not produce a P.A. or to let the essential questions change and be based on what an individual region wants will make it difficult for us to play a mirror role for the entire org. I get that we're not doing that now given the challenges we've experienced with sharing insights w/ the org. But, I'm not ready to give up on that goal of reviews :-).
Niah

# data[].attributes.headline
1) Answering big questions and 2) Focusing on meaning making and "what now"

# data[].attributes.subject
1) Answering big questions and 2) Focusing on meaning making and "what now"

# data[].attributes.body
I think our team now has expertise where we can go much deeper into answering big questions for the org (having significant research expertise).  For example, projects where we look across regions and determine a POV on the conditions that are critical to see X result, or doing case studies and going really deep into what's contributing to certain outcomes. Like others have said, I think we have to play a bigger role in helping to make meaning of info and proposing solutions. I think we should be doing this by facilitating learning experiences where groups of folks dig into the data and start to form opinions about what should happen next in order to address these findings. I think what this looks like is continuing to refine our approach to making recommendations in our reviews; convening folks to discuss what these findings means for their work (like we did at the HA conference); and creating oppty where people can develop & test solutions/next steps (like we started to do in the DE pilot).
Niah

# data[].attributes.headline
Contribute to learning in areas where we need to learn most as an org

# data[].attributes.subject
Contribute to learning in areas where we need to learn most as an org

# data[].attributes.body
I think OWLS should be facilitating learning experiences, collecting & codifying knowledge, and making insights available to the org. I think our team's unique value-add to this is that we have expertise in providing more context and nuance to our quantitative data. Where DRI has the capacity and charge to follow our quant data (e.g., BTRs), we can go deeper and provide the qualitative side to those #s. We matter because we can tell the story behind the #s - what these trends look like on the ground, how they are impacting teams and regions, what success (or failure) looks like, etc.
Niah

# data[].attributes.body
I think right now the IR process invests heavily in data collecting, analysis, and reporting, and I think some reports, most particularly the PA, aren't yielding the value-add needed for the time and people inputs.

I also don't think we should focus heavily on areas where other teams may have more expertise - development, for example.

# data[].attributes.body
I think we can help the org think through the next stages of its work (e.g. TFA's evolution in the next decade). I would love for IR to work with regions who are experiencing issues that other regions, and perhaps the national org, can reasonably expect to face in the next 3-5 years. If there are any "bellwether" regions,  I'd want to understand their work through IR, and play those insights back to the broader org.

What I don't think is the IR's value-add is to provide the intensive service to all regions - given the capacity dedicated to each review. I do think the learning from each review can be made more applicable to the broader org.
-Robert

# data[].attributes.body
I've felt that the process of Impact Reviews, and the rigor associated with how we lift insights, has been helpful for regions to experience. There's a heavy dose of curiosity and context that we embed in our work with regions, and I think, at a high level, we could help build a region's capacity to tackle some of their own long-term learning questions.

For the org, I think we can work with regions who are currently or considering piloting different techniques to address broader org goals (e.g. breakthrough results); IR can capture this information and plug it into the broader org to inform larger-scale strategy.

-Robert

# data[].attributes.headline
I think we need to be well versed in short cycles of inquiry and communities of learning. I also think we need to be strong in both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis.  

# data[].attributes.subject
I think we need to be well versed in short cycles of inquiry and communities of learning. I also think we need to be strong in both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis.  

# data[].attributes.body
Jess

# data[].attributes.headline
I don't think we should take on many projects where we are the sole project manager. In those cases we tend to spend a lot of time on the logistics of the work and not a lot of time on the places where we can add the most value given our skill sets.

# data[].attributes.subject
I don't think we should take on many projects where we are the sole project manager. In those cases we tend to spend a lot of time on the logistics of the work and not a lot of time on the places where we can add the most value given our skill sets.

# data[].attributes.body
Jess

# data[].attributes.headline
I believe that we should work with regions (or those national team members who have influence in regions) to consult and help set them up to learn about the most important issues in their particular contexts. I also think we can serve as a connector for  regions that are interested in prioritizing similar issues.

# data[].attributes.subject
I believe that we should work with regions (or those national team members who have influence in regions) to consult and help set them up to learn about the most important issues in their particular contexts. I also think we can serve as a connector for  regions that are interested in prioritizing similar issues.

# data[].attributes.body
Jess

# data[].attributes.headline
I think our core purpose is to help foster learning across the organization through cycles of inquiry, network communities, reviews, etc. We can accomplish this by consulting with regions and national staff to create initial learning plans, execute on those plans and determine how to use what they learn to make decisions that will push their work forward. 

# data[].attributes.subject
I think our core purpose is to help foster learning across the organization through cycles of inquiry, network communities, reviews, etc. We can accomplish this by consulting with regions and national staff to create initial learning plans, execute on those plans and determine how to use what they learn to make decisions that will push their work forward. 

# data[].attributes.body
Jess

# data[].attributes.headline
In general, I see a real need to help feul solutions, innovations, and test them.  I think the BULK of OWLS work (both Impact Reviews, DRI, and OL) has been looking back and doing analysis around what has happened, and maybe WHY.  But less around "What might we do about that?"  I think there's a need for us to live in that strategic space more.   Noemi 

# data[].attributes.subject
In general, I see a real need to help feul solutions, innovations, and test them.  I think the BULK of OWLS work (both Impact Reviews, DRI, and OL) has been looking back and doing analysis around what has happened, and maybe WHY.  But less around "What might we do about that?"  I think there's a need for us to live in that strategic space more.   Noemi 

# data[].attributes.headline
I think we should be cautious to explore projects where we know its going to take an extended period of time to deliver meaningful insights, I think this type of learning is relevant in our context given how often things seem to change, we operate in a pretty dynamic organization and think we need to mitigate risk of signing up for something that's long term and the conditions changing mid project. 

# data[].attributes.subject
I think we should be cautious to explore projects where we know its going to take an extended period of time to deliver meaningful insights, I think this type of learning is relevant in our context given how often things seem to change, we operate in a pretty dynamic organization and think we need to mitigate risk of signing up for something that's long term and the conditions changing mid project. 

# data[].attributes.headline
In order to do the 'recommendations' piece well, I think we need to be great at:

# data[].attributes.subject
In order to do the 'recommendations' piece well, I think we need to be great at:

# data[].attributes.body
1) identifying root causes/ proving/disproving hypotheses behind what EDs/regions want to test
2) matching RT members to reviews where they can provide recommendations to EDs & setting up a process to extract those recommendations
3) continue to be great at qualitative/quantitative data collection, analysis, reporting
4) get better at asking the right questions to get to a place of proving/disproving hypotheses
Stephanie

# data[].attributes.headline
It seems that our ultimate goal is internal learning... Without knowing more about our OWLS strategy and how our work fits in with other teams at TFA it's difficult to answer this question. That being said, where I have seen Impact Reviews add unique value is in helping regions gather stakeholder input to address/tackle big questions they have, and using insights to inform TOA/vision/strategy going forward. I think it's had a major impact in some regions (LA, Nashville, NEOH...), and minimal impact in others (DFW, BAY), so we need to tighten our process a bit to maximize impact. (match various models with stakeholder need, maximize day 3 learning & recommendations, etc.)

# data[].attributes.subject
It seems that our ultimate goal is internal learning... Without knowing more about our OWLS strategy and how our work fits in with other teams at TFA it's difficult to answer this question. That being said, where I have seen Impact Reviews add unique value is in helping regions gather stakeholder input to address/tackle big questions they have, and using insights to inform TOA/vision/strategy going forward. I think it's had a major impact in some regions (LA, Nashville, NEOH...), and minimal impact in others (DFW, BAY), so we need to tighten our process a bit to maximize impact. (match various models with stakeholder need, maximize day 3 learning & recommendations, etc.)

# data[].attributes.body
I'm less clear on what our work looks like beyond Impact Reviews, but think that we should take on projects ONLY when they present a clear path towards pushing our work forward (either helping specific regions make progress to their BTRs, and/or helping the org learn from what's working/what's not to spread best practices/emerging innovations, etc.). It seems dangerous/irresponsible to me to take on 'interesting' projects vs. those with a clear path for impact (in both impact reviews and other work).
Stephanie

# data[].attributes.headline
It looks like what EDs are really hungry for is consulting on strategic questions/aspects of their strategy (e.g. alumni), and they see our major value-add in us gathering input from stakeholders on those areas, and bringing a group of ‘experts’ to advise them. (IRs) 

# data[].attributes.subject
It looks like what EDs are really hungry for is consulting on strategic questions/aspects of their strategy (e.g. alumni), and they see our major value-add in us gathering input from stakeholders on those areas, and bringing a group of ‘experts’ to advise them. (IRs) 

# data[].attributes.body
I also think we could add value by sharing what people are hungry for - best practices/what's working in regions (ex: NC case study potentially?)
Stephanie

# data[].attributes.headline
While survey results show people appreciate our comprehensive Preliminary Analysis, it seems that actually, most regions aren’t getting enough value out of it to justify the work. Those that have utilized the report are those that 1) are new EDs who need a ‘101’ on their data (ex: Nashville), or 2) regions who ‘haven’t had time/capacity’ to weave the various pieces of functional data together to tell a story (ex: New Jersey). It has seemed really helpful in those cases, but feels like a temporary void we’ve been filling that really Emily Gelb’s work and DAR’s work should fill. 

# data[].attributes.subject
While survey results show people appreciate our comprehensive Preliminary Analysis, it seems that actually, most regions aren’t getting enough value out of it to justify the work. Those that have utilized the report are those that 1) are new EDs who need a ‘101’ on their data (ex: Nashville), or 2) regions who ‘haven’t had time/capacity’ to weave the various pieces of functional data together to tell a story (ex: New Jersey). It has seemed really helpful in those cases, but feels like a temporary void we’ve been filling that really Emily Gelb’s work and DAR’s work should fill. 

# data[].attributes.body
EDs want actionable recommendations, given that knowing what to do with a ‘mirror’ across 5 large areas, with multiple sub-dimensions is overwhelming and takes time they don’t have. Also, in most cases we haven’t been able to deliver much beyond what they already know, so how useful is a mirror if your reflection is the same as you see it everyday?
Stephanie

# data[].attributes.headline
Are there certain places we should NOT focus?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are there certain places we should NOT focus?

# data[].attributes.headline
Stakeholder:  I feel like the balance between direct regional supports, and national teams feels right - however, I think our answer around working with national teams re: clients needs to be a bit more nuanced, I think we need to differentiate our national stakeholders based on ability to impact regions?  

# data[].attributes.subject
Stakeholder:  I feel like the balance between direct regional supports, and national teams feels right - however, I think our answer around working with national teams re: clients needs to be a bit more nuanced, I think we need to differentiate our national stakeholders based on ability to impact regions?  

# data[].attributes.body
Noemi

# data[].attributes.body
Use this space for reflections that don't quite fit anywhere else!

# data[].attributes.headline
Scroll right for other questions (5 total) -->

# data[].attributes.subject
Scroll right for other questions (5 total) -->

# data[].attributes.headline
What core strengths on IRI enable this impact?

# data[].attributes.subject
What core strengths on IRI enable this impact?

# data[].attributes.body
Where do we need to be great in order to win those strategic bets? What capabilities (people and tools) must be in place for this to be possible?

# data[].attributes.headline
Where do we believe we can make the greatest impact?

# data[].attributes.subject
Where do we believe we can make the greatest impact?

# data[].attributes.body
With what programs, services, or offerings will we make the biggest impact? With which stakeholders are those programs, services, and offerings most important? What are our strategic bets?

# data[].attributes.headline
What are our ultimate aspirations for IRI?

# data[].attributes.subject
What are our ultimate aspirations for IRI?

# data[].attributes.body
What is our core purpose? What unique value do we add to OWLS and TFA’s strategy? Why do we matter to TFA?