Innovations: the good and the bad

[Oak Tree]

The discussion around innovation in general got me thinking about some of the "innovations" we've seen in Scouting recently. I wanted to understand which of these match up with traits for successful innovation and which may not. (And what is the difference between "innovation" and "change" in this context?)

 

Leave No Trace

Benefits to users: It's a simple, catchy phrase (easier than "Take only pictures, leave only footprints". It's easy to see how if everyone did it, the outdoors would be nicer. Simple, straightforward principles, does not require one person to really push to make it happen in a unit.

 

New Quality Unit Calculations

Benefits to users: It makes more sense. Also, it's graduated with different levels, rather than the prior yes/no.

Drawback for users: You can't set your own goal.

Will more units use them? If you knew you weren't going to make it, why even bother? In general, I like it. I think it may have some benefit to Scouting in general, so it might stick around.

 

New Outdoor Achievement Award

Benefits to users: You can get a new, meaningful award. Can be added up at any time - requirements are pretty straightforward.

Drawback to users: Pain to keep track of.

I like this innovation, too. We did not really have a good way to recognize this type of accomplishment before.

 

Merging all of the Unit Leader Awards of Merit into one

Benefits/Drawbacks to users: For any specific leader, the form has the same difficulty to fill out. Some find it easier and some find it harder to earn the award. For Scouting, it adds "consistency", but I put that in quotes because for me, this innovation destroyed any meaning this award had. It's trivial for a Cubmaster and next-to-impossible for a Venturing Advisor. I don't like this innovation and don't understand it at all.

 

Dropping Venturing age to 13/8th grade

Benefits to users: Get to join earlier. Easier to sign up a bunch of people at the same time. Consistent with how schools handle grades.

Drawbacks: Get a few younger kids that lowers the average capability and/or exclusivity of the crew.

I like this innovation. It's much easier to follow along with. I think that Varsity Scouts should do the same.

 

There have been tons of other innovations in Scouting. Things are constantly changing.

 

So - which recent innovations do you think are good (make things better, people like them and see some benefit) and which ones not so much (don't help, or wouldn't stick around without some mandate, or are overly dependent on one person to implement). (and I'm looking more for your description of what you like - and not so much for a long argument with Kudu over the entire directional philosophy of the program. Which specific changes have you liked or not liked?)

[SeattlePioneer]

One of my theories is that bright ideas are cheaper than balogney. Bright ideas that really work are rare gems.

 

For a bright idea to work in Scouting it needs to attract the interest of Scouting professionals, volunteers, parents, youth and the community. And they need to pan out financially. The innovation needs to fit in with the purposes and goals of Scouting.

 

Based on all these criteria, I suggest that the Cub Scout program is the greatest innovation in Scouting since the Boy Scout program itself was developed through a process of innovation.

 

This also illustrates the folly of those who would try to turn Scouting's Congressional charter into a kind of Holy Writ to stifle change and innovation. If we were limited to the program as it existed in 1916 there would be no Cub Scout program and we would still be wearing these uniforms:

 

http://www.njscoutmuseum.org/TourImages/100_0012-sm.JPG

 

But change for the sake of change is no good either. Changes must meet those tests described above and be capable of being delivered on a large scale by the staff and volunteers we have or can attract.

[Beavah]

Yah, interestin' question. I had a slightly different perspective.

 

LNT

I'm a fan of LNT as I think it's da only rational way to prevent land management agencies from imposing burdensome restrictions on us. But I don't think it has had much real penetration into da BSA as yet. It hasn't been well-integrated with advancement or training; more a tack-on "oh by the way" sort of thing. So far on da BSA side it's a failure because of lack of real institutional commitment.

 

Journey to Excellence

Better than Centennial Quality Unit, but still is designed to serve da top (collect "numbers") rather than really assist the units. Da extra effort required to keep track of and compute various elements of the thing doesn't pass the "don't add to the burden" test. I'm particularly disappointed in da district/council versions; nuthin' but more numbers games. I reckon we'll see a lot of fudging.

 

Outdoor Achievement

I like that it's at least focused on gettin' outdoors, which is more than we can say for most of the advancement requirements these days. Again, the administrative / tracking burden is too high for most units.

 

Dropping da Venturing Age

FAIL. Honestly, this is part of a long-term pattern in da BSA. Boys find Webelos boring, so rather than beef up the webelos program we try to get 'em to cross over earlier, because Boy Scouting is more fun. Except then yeh have a bunch of 10 year old 5th graders in Boy Scouts, which means yeh weaken that program, which makes Boy Scouting boring. So then yeh lower da joining age for Venturing, because that's more fun. Except then yeh have a bunch of 13 year old little kids in a high school - college program, which means yeh weaken that program. Next we'll be introducin' Rovers, and lowering the joining age of that to 15. Da better answer is to improve the quality of the Webelos programs, and improve da quality of the troop programs, not lower da age of the next higher program.

 

Now, Venturing itself I felt was a good innovation, despite da chaos in which it was born. It pulled da original exploring back into the fold and let da career-exploring stuff go its own way, and da Ranger/outdoor adventure stuff was a pretty nice fit for adults who were doin' that sort of work anyways. Yeh had an almost immediate group of "early adopters". I haven't been as convinced by the other venturing focus groups (ministry/sports/etc.). That seems to me to be weakening da focus of the program without really servin' those groups all that well. Youth ministry programs usually have their own, religiously-tailored materials and such.

 

Beavah

 

 

[Kudu]

Oak Tree writes:

 

I'm [not] looking for a long argument with Kudu over the entire directional philosophy of the program.

 

SeattlePioneer replies:

 

those who would try to turn Scouting's Congressional charter into a kind of Holy Writ to stifle change and innovation.

 

Well, that went well.

 

Here are examples of two such uniforms: One from a "Retro-Innovation" Boy Scout program based on the "Lemon Squeezer" (Campaign Hat) period of Scouting, and the other from a beret-era program:

 

http://inquiry.net/uniforms/traditional/index.htm

 

Some charts that explain how a retro-uniform works:

 

http://inquiry.net/uniforms/traditional/placement.htm

 

And detailed "how-to" instructions for making your own authentic Scout shirt to Baden-Powell's specifications:

 

http://inquiry.net/uniforms/traditional/shirt01.htm

 

One innovation I like a lot is Scuba Diving Merit Badge:

 

http://inquiry.net/scuba_diving_merit_badge/index.htm

 

As an ongoing Troop program it offers monthly adventure in the south were it is simply too hot and humid to camp.

 

On the down-side it shares in common with two other wildly popular "innovations" (sixth-grade recruiting based on dangerous adventure, and spacing Patrols 300 feet apart), a near-universal rejection by adults.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net

 

 

[dkurtenbach]

Thanks for spinning off this topic. On the question of "change" versus "innovation," I think of innovation as a new thing or a new way of doing an old thing, with "new" meaning something like _we_ have not done it or anything like it before, or if we have, very few remember it.

 

In that sense, I personally see most of the items on your list as "changes" -- just a repackaging or rearrangement of things we're already doing or have previously done. I would also put Venturing in that category.

 

I think Leave No Trace is an "innovation" -- a break from Scouting's perspective in its first 50 or 60 years of _using_ the resources of the land and nature to make camping and other activities comfortable and fun. I would agree that implementation has been less than ideal.

 

Adoption of nylon zip-off pants as an official uniform item is an innovation I welcomed. They are comfortable, quick-drying, and suitable for many outdoor activities; a nice change from the heavy, uncomfortable perma-creased old style pants.

 

Adoption of technology for administrative tasks -- Internet Rechartering, Internet Advancement, electronic tour permits, and the Unit Visit Tracking System -- is a great innovation for Scouting, in my view. A lot of the old "paperwork" tasks can be done faster and more accurately. However, implementation has been slow and messy (if not disastrous).

 

Finally, I would call adoption of online training to be a needed innovation. There are some areas where you just need to transfer information -- facts and procedures with few options and few nuances and no experience required -- and online training works well for that. There are other areas where a "live" training course is best, and others where "on-the-job" training is best, but online training has a role.

 

Dan K.(This message has been edited by dkurtenbach)

[OldGreyEagle]

See now I thought it was a GREAT idea to have the Venturing age drop to 13 and be out of 8th grade because there were some youth who were 13 when they got out of 8th grade and they couldnt join a Crew until they turned 14 and that could be in a few weeks, a few months or forever (3 months or more in a youth's time frame). The age change was made so a Crew could take the recent 8th graders on their summer superactivity and not leave anyone out because of a birthday in late August or something like that

 

 

For the Outdoor Acheivement Awards, In a youth led organization, how can it be that the "administrative / tracking burden is too high for most units."? Like advancement, tracking the requirements is the youth's responsibility. The unit gives the information and then the Patrol/youths keep track. Should not effect the Troop

. I like that the requirments are hard, not easy

 

 

I like the way BSA has Handled Leave No Trace, lets look at the places Leave No Trace is Found:

 

The Cub Program has Leave No Trace requirements for Tiger, Bear, and Webelos ranks

 

In Boy Scouts

 

The Second Requirement for Second Class is:

2.Discuss the principles of Leave No Trace.

 

The Third Requirement for First Class is:

3.Since joining, have participated in 10 separate troop/patrol activities (other than troop/patrol meetings), three of which included camping overnight. Demonstrate the principles of Leave No Trace on these outings.

 

The Second Requirement for the Camping Merit Badge (Eagle Required) is:

2.Learn the Leave No Trace principles and the Outdoor Code and explain what they mean. Write a personal plan for implementing these principles on your next outing

 

The Second Requirement of the Hiking Merit Badge is

2.Explain and, where possible, show the points of good hiking practices. including the principles of Leave No Trace, hiking safety in the daytime and at night, courtesy to others, choice of footwear, and proper care of feet and footwear.

 

In Venturing the Ranger Award has as a Core requirement a section titled "Leave No Trace"

 

In Adult training, the Inroduction to Outdoor Leader Skills course has a section on Leave No Trace and also a section on Campsite Selection that includes the Leave No Trace principle

 

In Wood Badge, the Patrol Outing is to be done following Leave No Trace Principles, the model Campsite shown is to follow Leave No Trace Principles and the Course directors are to affirm they will follow Leave No Trace Principles

 

Now, could the BSA do more with Leave No Trace? Certainly as could anyone who has ever camped but I wouldnt call their approach a failure of Institutional committment either(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Beavah]

Yep, like I said, OGE, no institutional commitment.

 

Yeh have to remember, LNT is its own educational program. If yeh wanted to really do somethin' meaningful you'd follow the program, eh? Instead of spending 20 minutes on it as a tack on to IOLS you'd have every scouter complete a LNT trainer course (or at least a regular LNT course). A bit like da difference between get certified in CPR and talk about how CPR is important for 20 minutes. Which would yeh feel shows commitment to safety?

 

Similarly, it wouldn't be a tack-on to da outdoors skills in the handbook, eh? Instead each principle would be par to the other requirements. Cleaning up after meals? (dispose of waste properly). Selecting a campsite? (travel and camp on durable surfaces). Building s fire? Same thing. Yeh wouldn't get signed off on da skill unless you were able to do it in a LNT compliant way. Not another discuss/write/bookwork requirement, but a part of what we do in all of our outdoor practice.

 

As for administration/tracking of other stuff, I think Oak Tree was referring to Eagledad's innovation rules from da other thread, eh? Anything that adds an additional time commitment or burden is suspect. And right now, very few troops or individuals are tracking outing participation in that way. I'm sure not. Are you? . Heck, most troops can't even give us their participation numbers for summer camp with any reliability or accuracy!

 

We now return yeh to the innovation discussion.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[SeattlePioneer]

My idea of leave no trace was abandonning the use of a saw and axe to construct a lean to shelter for the night.

 

 

You mean there's more to it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

in one regard I think the Scoutreach program was a great innovation and a poor one at the same time

 

The Goal of getting scouting to places that did not or could not offer it is a noble goal. As a poster here frequently says, the devil is in the details. Scoutreach got scouting to many boys who needed it while also ruinning several traditional packs in the area.

[CalicoPenn]

Good Innovation: The Red Beret

 

Bad Innovation: Getting rid of the Red Beret for a baseball cap - and an ugly baseball cap at that.

 

Good Innovation turned Bad: Leave No Trace - would have remained a good innovation had Scouting understood what it really was about and didn't muck it up by trying to use it to make changes in their outdoor program, or try to make it a one size fits all situations program.

 

Bad Innovation: COPES. The BSA should have left that to the folks that do it well, like Outward Bound, and the myriad of organizations and private companies that only do these kinds of programs.

 

Good Innovation made better: Okpik as the Innovation offered at National High Adventure Bases made better by rolling it out to the local level.

 

Bad Innovation: Aluminum Pinewood Derby Tracks. Like Aluminum Baseball Bats, some things should never have been greenlighted - somtimes we need to let tradition reign.

 

Good Innovation: Tiger Cubs

 

Bad Innovation: Webelos 1 & 2. Why fix something that wasn't broken?

 

Bad Innovation turned Good: Venturing - for a time, it appeared to be the death knell of the entire Exploring program - but in time, the separation of the outdoor adventure oriented Venturing from the career exploration oriented Learning for Life was successful for both programs, and the death knell for Exploring was just the bells tolling for the loss of the name.