GradeCam’s Critical Mass and Change Agents

As I continue my proposal to the Board of Directors in considering the adoption of the GradeCam innovation, the focus will now be on the ‘point’ of critical mass and on some of the key personnel in the organization. However, before addressing these two scenarios, the Board might ask the question: If we were to adopt GradeCam, which method do you think would be a better choice; a centralized or a decentralized approach? I think that a centralized approach would be much better, because that would cost the organization much less. Instead of distributing a GradeCam to each teacher after the adoption of the innovation, the concentration of the equipment could be done departmentally. For example, the six teachers of the mathematics department would receive one instrument that would be used by only the members of that department. There would be no exchange among departments, unless it’s absolutely necessary. To oversee the operation of the GradeCam from the time it was adopted to the update of its latest software, I would recommend some key personnel to the position of change agents.

A change agent is who Rogers (2003) called ‘an individual who influences clients’ innovation-decisions in a direction deemed desirable by a change agency’. This agency, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, is our organization, or better yet, our school. In addition to myself, as the technical expert on this innovation, I would include the principal, the main leadership of the institution. Both of us will lead the way in this adoption, as we aimed at fulfilling the duties of a change agent. Rogers also identified the roles of this agent, and listed them as follows:1) The need to change clientele2) Establishing an information exchange relationship 3) Diagnose problems4) Create intent to change in the client5) Translate intent into action 6) Stabilize adoption and prevent discontinuance7) Achieve a terminal relationshipBut, how can these seven roles effect positive social change within this school?

First, the faculty, especially those who are not technology proficient, would be trained in the use of the innovation spearheaded by GradeCam Inc., the intention of which is to make the adoption process real. Secondly, as change agents, we would share the latest information about the innovation with the faculty on a regular basis, as soon as it is made known to us by innovation’s creators. Thirdly, recognizing and diagnosing the issues or problems of the faculty with respect to the innovation will be one of our priorities. Fourthly, while processing the faculty’s adoption and use of the innovation, our intention would be to transform the entire faculty as to the usefulness and necessity of GradeCam. Fifthly, our intention would be made known to these users of the innovation, as they see the real necessity of it. That is, the purpose of not just grading tests, but analyzing them for student evaluation, which, in turn, would drive lesson planning, making it more manageable than before. All these would be done, so as to stabilize the adoption of GradeCam, preventing a discontinuity. Finally, this whole process would really not be a success if new change agents are not emerged from the adopters. These new change

agents would then play our role, as new teachers join the faculty. This change agent transformation would terminate the relationship of GradeCam adoption between the principal, me, and the new change agents, formerly the adopters of GradeCam.

Members of the Board, as you have seen on the Sigmoid function, or the S-curve, the GradeCam has already achieved its point of critical mass within the social strata of education system. This occurred between the years 2005 and 2006, at 10%, when a steep rise in the curve began. At this phase of the innovation, over 10% of the ‘early majority’ of classroom teachers exposed to the innovation, started to adopt it.