Associate Name: James Edwards
Main Advisor and OP Reviewer: Jennifer Dauksha-English Morgan

Output Packet #:  	4	Year: PreCap MSc
Date Submitted: July 12, 2018
Date Reviewed: July 20, 2018
Mark: 75 (Self) 77 (Pro)
Grade: B
Time Spent on Review: 3.75 hrs

Dear James,

Happy to read your Output Packet after my original draft review. Thanks for all of your work on skill building with your OP and in your work.

My review is broken into these sections:
1. Evaluation Form 
2. Comments Per Section

Required next step: 
NA

Recommended next step:
Read over suggestions and edit OP and use feedback to design OP 5.

I respect your integrity in managing your pathway. I'm glad to be your advisor! It’s been fun, inspiring and insightful!

Cheers,
Jennifer

OP REVIEW-------------------------

1. EVALUATION FORM-------------------- 

(attached)

2. COMMENTS PER SECTION---------------

Commentary
- Love that picture of you James! 
- I’m so excited by this project and the opportunity! 
- The opening statement is very crisp and clear - consider adding the duration of the program, like say the, “2 month program”. Whatever it was.
- Good overview of intent for OP.
- Complex Adaptive Systems is contextualized with the example Living Systems), yet you define neither.
- Can you add a sentence explaining what you mean by chosen topic? That sentence seems to come out of nowhere. Tell the reader that the program has a design challenge perhaps and mention how the topic was chosen. And how does it add complexity? You’re making an assumption that the reader understands or believes that this equals complex.
- I like the bot about using sophisticated and wide-ranging tools. I’m curious how these tools were useful to the program versus the management of team, or even organization. 
- Very succinct and sharp ToC
- I like how you have this page laid out with the specification, and two reflections.
-Navigation is easy to follow. You don’t say much on core report. Also, note to reviewer? What’s included in the word count? I would say it’s this column and page 2 - that’s it.
- This is a very great sentence that provides excellent context, “ This OP summarizes my experience as part of a team adapting and facilitating a Theory U–based program called Communities for Change for use in our community of Boulder, Colorado, USA as a method for collective change making around Climate Action and Resilience.”
- You say, “In the implementation of this program we discover in Theory U an effective yet complex model for understanding and intervening in complex adaptive systems.” -  yet once again don’t define what you mean by a Complex Adaptive System.  What do you even mean by the word system? 
- So I love your spiral comment and cool graphic about GSADIE. Which I normally name GaSADIE. Anyway, this is GOSADIMET version and I don’t necessarily think it’s linear/spiral. To me it’s small iterations and then pulse backs within a larger cycle. Yet each step within the larger project is also going through this process. So it’s quite the matrix. I do think it spirals when form and flow are integrated instead of predict and control. Those are my thoughts on how it moves. ¬
- I’m curious why you choose this model? I look forward to hearing about your design choices and ‘evolution of your design skills’ in OP 5.
- Nicole’s right - you and I could really geek out about design.
- How will these goals be tracked? I like the replicability part.
- In the design process - you may want to mention that you received a draft review?
- Appreciate that you assess whether you met the goals. Can you add any metrics or statistics to future tracking? 
- I’m noticing that you’re using GSADIE a bunch. As your new Advisor I’m not completely tuned into whether or not you used other design models much - but really I’m looking for my Associates to explore at least 5, preferably 10 different types of models in their degree pathway. So consider diving in deeper for OP 5 and adding this to LIPD for the next phase.
- Moving to pathway update - lovely life update! 
- Are you familiar with Transition Design Theory?
- You don’t mention who your guild mate is in this record.
- Good overview of engagement - again maybe mention the draft reviews.
- Great overview on time mang.
- Might be useful to have a picture of the skill flex assessment from OP 3. On that note, have you considered making a graphic? I would like for you to consider adding a graphic and even metrics for OP 5.
- I like the idea of stacking OPs in your final reflection section here in right column. When you speak of PoDAPO, yes I think linking it into the design is so important. I’m wondering how you feel about it though? Are you using it to just get it done and included or is it helping you with learning and growing?
- Why do you have a summary of meeting goals twice on this page?
- Good overview of incorporation of feedback. Its helpful that you stated how you incorporated the suggestions. 
- Dissemination - program itself.
- Journals - check!

Core Report
- What an amazing project! I feel that this was a real career opportunity for you to get to facilitate and co-design this program! Nice picture.
- You said hitherto:)
- Nice opening context and background.
- You did a very good job explaining the process and your role. 
- So your entire project was funded by these stakeholder-sponsors? Or was there other leverage?
- Nice testimonials.
- So how would you turn these observations into a usable checklist of organizers?
- I’m not sure I understand this Session 0 bit.
- I love this bit on living Theory U. i recall the team didn’t do this well though. Did everyone buy into this goal?
- Good pattern analysis. I would suggest that you add a definition of what you mean by pattern analysis in the beginning. Great content here. To whom did you share this google document? I’m curious how you observed these patterns? One type of analysis is - in these 5 cases I observed x and y and in this case I observed z, and here is possibly why. 
- Nice work using a resource like Pattern Language to capture this analysis - yet I’m still unclear how you observed the content. Speaking a bit more about your process would be helpful.
- Under interventions - can you link these courses?
- What was the actual intervention? Like if I were to ask you to explain the context of a system and identify where in the system you were intervening and why - could you do that? You say facilitation, but what about facilitation was needing an intervention? Here you list actions you took - but where was the original gap in the system?

Supplementary
- EXCELLENT 
- I’m not going to comment much here as I reviewed much of this for your draft OP.
- This will be a great resource for you and others!! How have you disseminated this material?
- I love the bits you added - this page is going to be used by many people as a resource!! Me for sure!

Support
- Excellent pictures!! You look so professional and laid back - and like you’re having fun!!
- Great support material James.

Original Draft Review May 10th, 2018:
For our agenda tomorrow I’d like to add:
1. Being more explicit with process tools/learnings/technique and examples
2. Providing more evidence of what you are doing via images and specifications/examples
3. Expand design scope
4. Being explicit about navigation/word count - step more into the archetype of guide.
5. Integration of concepts/threads

I look forward to talking to you tomorrow!

Page 1
- As you are receiving a degree in design, it is essential that you experiment with multiple forms of design, other than GSADIE.
- In design methodology I would suggest writing out GSADIEs acronym right away and also a bit about the model before you dive into the goals.
- In reflection on OP design I imagine you’ll state if you met the goals? Ok so how does OP 3 build on your use of GSADIE in OP 3?
- On pathway mgmt - this is not included in the word count. How are you tracking metrics?
- How are you improving time mgmt? With what tools?
- Project integration be more specific. You’re pathway reflection so far is very vague. How does this build on OP 2 and 3?
- On dissemination are you able to provide supporting evidence of these workshop modules?

Page 2
- Where is your project statement on this page - the who is doing what for whom, when, where and how? I want to know what is your role in this project? Are you just a researcher?
- Good world context and intro to Theory U.
- State where you get your images. Do you have permission to use all these images?
- This is a lot of background on Theory U as a tool - great. How about your personal experiments and reflections?
- Good comparative analysis. Would love to see this expanded. Are there critiques of Theory U? 

Page 3
- Ok so here’s where your actual experience is. The other page felt like a lot of deconstruction and reconstruction of content. 

Page 4
- Needs an introduction/summary of contents.
- I want to see more evidence of you at these events. Pictures. Fliers.
- Who created this workbook?
- This OP has a lot of content that was created by others (I think). It looks like the graphics on page 2 and this workbook on page 4 were made by the organization? Please be clear of their origin. If they are not yours, then be sure to upload more supporting evidence that you yourself created.

Presentation - good. Could use more pictures that include you/styles (this is a request from OP 3 - you did good on graphic content - but I don’t think you created them); mini introductions on page 3 and 4, expand page 2 to include your project specification statement.

Organization - looks good. A bit more editing/formatting and note on navigation. State about the retractable tabs. When you say embedded files contain essential content - do you mean for the word count/review? You really need to explain what is included in the word count.

Design - You talk about interventions and a bit about transitions. I’d like to hear more on both. Particularly about your pathway management and timeline. When it comes to design, I love the section where you compare design models. I want more of this type of sharing. Because you are getting the degree in design, you need to use a lot of different models. So here you’re using Theory U and GSADIE. Be sure to include others in future OPs.

Action Learning - I would suggest that you add a section on how you’re meeting the 4 action learning elements with this OP project: Doing/Reflecting/Thinking/Experimenting - the Kolb Model. On context - you do much better with this OP at sharing useful information relevant to the world/readers - you’re teaching. Whereas your last OP was very personal. Good improvement.

Process Skills - Be sure to be more explicit about 1. personal examples, and 2. actuals tools you’re using. My feedback I gave on OP 3 still stands.

Outcomes - Tell us more about the field and your niche (maybe as a conclusion). I want to see evidence of feedback and dissemination. How are you directly adding value to the field? Where’s your career path update (building on OP 3)?