4:30 p.m. Passion, Professionalism, & the Capstone
4:45 p.m.
Scopes of Work: Progress & Lessons Learned
5:15 p.m.
Challenges in Identifying “Best Practices”
5:45 p.m.
Discussion … next steps … team meetings …

• Three assertions based on observation …
– Intrinsic, not instrumental, motivations matter most in the world of public affairs.
– The most successful leaders in public, nonprofit, or civic management are motivated by passion about ideas of governance and civic improvement.
– The teams that produce the highest quality products in this class will be the teams that care the most – that can link tasks to an inspired vision.

• The Practical (empirical): consider particulars: projects or task-specific facts
• The Theoretical: view particulars through theoretical lens (logic model): order facts within conceptual frameworks
• The Methodological: adapt particular methodologies for known, explicit reasons
• The Interpersonal: adapt work assignments and styles to accommodate team members and clients
• The Value Laden and Ethical: distinguish fact from value and understand value choices implicit in analyses

• Novices tend to
1.
Focus on the particular: unordered project- or task-specific facts.
2.
Emphasize unique aspects of particular cases
3.
Begin work (e.g., data collection) without narrowing question or choosing appropriate methodologies and tools
4.
Let interpersonal relationships affect productivity or commitment
5.
Fail to distinguish matters of fact from value choices
• Experienced professionals
1.
View particulars through theoretical lenses (logic models)
2.
Order facts within conceptual frameworks
3.
Choose methodologies appropriate to carefully specified problem
4.
Focus on tasks rather than personalities
5.
Recognize that many “objective” choices represent value judgments

1. What progress have you made?
2. What was your biggest challenge?
3. What would you do differently next time?
4. How do you think this experience will differ from the experiences you have as a professional in the future preparing scopes?

• Substantive focus: What is the work about? What problem is to be solved? Is research question clearly specified?
• Theoretical framework: What logical framework or hypothesis is guiding the work?
• Approach/methodology: How will the work be done?
Will methods produce the data required to answer the research question?
• Units of analysis: What units will be used to present results or compare alternatives, options, or strategies?
• Feasibility/practicality: Can proposed work be accomplished in time frame with resources available?
• Quality: Is scope of work presented clearly and effectively with care and attention to detail? Are sections of the scope well-integrated?

1.
Define the problem
2.
Assemble some evidence
3.
Construct the alternatives
4.
Select the criteria
5.
Project the outcomes
6.
Confront the trade-offs
7.
Decide!
8.
Tell your story
(a variation on a familiar, intuitive decision-making model; contrast with scientific method)

• There are no such things …
(certainly cannot be identified with certainty in 15 weeks)
• Is important to manage expectations and convey relevance, features, functions, feasibility, and limitations of practices
• Language – semantics – can play an important role in advising decision-makers about potentially useful practices

• What is a smart (best) practice?
• What can you realistically expect to provide your clients about a practice?
• What does Bardach mean when he advises analysts to “take advantage” of latent opportunities?
• What semantic strategies may be useful in describing or characterizing a practice?
• What does Bardach mean by “generic vulnerability?”
• What is problem is Bardach concerned about when he asks, “But will it work here?” How can you, as an analyst, address this problem?

• Questions
• Team meetings