Degrees of Implementation

The outcomes of implementation attempts have been described in different ways and might be categorized as:

Paper implementation means putting into place new policies and procedures (the "recorded theory of change," Hernandez & Hodges, 2003) with the adoption of an innovation as the rationale for the policies and procedures.

  • One estimate was that 80-90% of the people-dependent innovations in business stop at paper implementation (Rogers, 2002).  
  • Westphal, Gulati, & Shortell (1997) found in their survey of businesses that, "If organizations can minimize evaluation and inspection of their internal operations by external constituents through adoption alone, they may neglect implementation altogether, decoupling operational routines from formally adopted programs." (p. 371).
  • Thus, paper implementation may be especially prevalent when outside groups are monitoring compliance (e.g., for accreditation) and much of the monitoring focuses on the paper trail.  It is clear that paperwork in file cabinets plus manuals on shelves do not equal putting innovations into practice with benefits to consumers.

Process implementation means putting new operating procedures in place to conduct training workshops, provide supervision, change information reporting forms, and so on (the "expressed theory of change" and "active theory of change," Hernandez & Hodges, 2003) with the adoption of an innovation as the rationale for the procedures.

  • The activities related to an innovation are occurring, events are being counted, and innovation-related languages are adopted.  However, not much of what goes on is functionally related to the new practice.
  • Training might consist of didactic orientation to the new practice or program, supervision might be unrelated to and uninformed by what was taught in training, information might be collected and stored without affecting decision making, and the terms used in the new language may be devoid of operational meaning and impact. 
  • In business, this form of implementation has been called the Fallacy of Programmatic Change.  That is, thinking that promulgating organizational mission statements, "corporate culture" programs, training courses, or quality circles will transform organizations and that employee behavior is changed simply by altering a company's formal structure and systems (Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector, 1990).
  • It is clear that the trappings of evidence-based practices and programs plus lip service do not equal putting innovations into practice with benefits to consumers. 

Performance implementation means putting procedures and processes in place in such a way that the identified functional components of change are used with good effect for consumers (the "integrated theory of change," Hernandez & Hodges, 2003; Paine, Bellamy, & Wilcox, 1984).  It appears that implementation that produces actual benefits to consumers, organizations, and systems requires more careful and thoughtful efforts.