What Works in Team-Based Implementation Science Training: Lessons From Supporting Teams
By Dr. Julia E. Moore, Executive Director
5-min read
When we first started providing training and capacity-building, most people signing up were individuals. These were the early adopters who were keen to learn more about implementation science and how they could apply it.
Over the years, we have seen an evolution in who is building implementation science capacity and how they learn. What once felt like a very individualistic approach to training has become much more collective in the past few years. We frequently see small and large teams building implementation science capacity together. We’ve seen this happen across a wide range of contexts—from funders building national cohorts, to organizations aligning implementation teams across an organization or network, to groups of practitioners coming together across organizations.
Lately, we’ve been getting so many questions about what works well when collectively building implementation capacity that we thought we would share some of our lessons learned over the past several years.
Why selecting implementation strategies is not enough
Our experience has been that once the determinant or barrier-to-strategy linkage clicks with people, the process of selecting a strategy can become easier. Where there tends to be a challenge is thinking through what happens next. In other words, “we selected strategies, now what?” We have jokingly called this “falling off the cliff” because this is what it feels like. Teams work so hard to select strategies, only to realize that you now have to bring them to life – often without clear guidance on how to make that happen.
The benefits of team-based implementation science training
One of the first things we noticed when teams go through courses together is that they build a shared language and a shared mental model around implementation. While this might seem small at first, differences in people's language and mental models are a huge contributor to tension on implementation initiatives. Once people have developed shared mental models, they can interpret concepts together, rather than learning about them first, and then needing to translate and figure out what that means relative to the language they’re currently using later. This creates absorptive capacity – everyone gains a common framework for discussing barriers and facilitators, how to select implementation strategies, and how to consider readiness and sustainability.
Because many initial implementation science concepts focus on role clarity, the process of creating a shared language and shared mental models often also leads to greater role clarity. Since role clarity is one of the biggest challenges in implementation, this is a great way to start.
Working through course content together can build trust within teams. We have seen examples of this over and over. Implementation work is social; it involves humans working with humans. When people discuss and explore those concepts together, we often find that people can build stronger and more trusting relationships.
How implementation projects are executed differently when teams are trained together
Because implementation teams almost always bring real initiatives that they are trying to implement into their capacity, they are immediately able to apply the concepts that they are learning. That means that the work isn’t theoretical; it is immediately applied. For example, instead of thinking about conceptual factors that could influence implementation, we see teams describe the actual contextual factors that are influencing implementation. From the education literature, we know that when people can immediately see how new content applies to their lives, it makes it much easier for them to retain and use that new knowledge.
For example, Placer County Office of Education (PCOE) originally enrolled 18 team members supporting the implementation of programs across their county, region, and state in the Level 1 Implementation Support Specialist certification. While they might not have the job title of “Implementation Support Specialist”, this is the important role they play in the education system. As they saw the benefits of group enrollments, they sent a second cohort of team members through the certificate.
New models for building implementation capacity through group training
One of the most exciting and interesting things we’ve been noticing is the types of teams that are coming together. Originally, the groups that we would see going through training together were people from the same organization or people who were all working on the same funded initiative. Lately, we have seen three slight variations on these models that hold interesting promise for the future.
First, it has been incredible to see funders supporting implementation capacity building across all of their funded initiatives. We have seen groups like the Kids Brain Health Network doing this year after year. In that case, participants weren’t just taking the course as a group—they were also part of a structured working group that met regularly to discuss and apply what they were learning. Having that additional layer of facilitation and reflection created space for people to think more deeply about how implementation science concepts applied to their own initiatives, and to learn from others working on different projects across the network. Over time, this has created a growing cohort of professionals across the country who have implementation science knowledge and skills, as well as their topic-specific expertise. It also allows participants to build relationships and networks that continue beyond initial training
Second, we’ve seen funded teams bring in a much more diverse group of participants for capacity-building. Initially, when funded teams would come to training as a group, the same people would show up - implementation leads, quality, improvement professionals, mid-level managers, evaluators, researchers, trainees (grad students and post-docs). Lately, we’ve seen examples where researchers, implementers, community partners, and people with lived experience are all learning together. For example, the Can-SOLVE CKD Network, Canada’s largest-ever kidney research initiative and the THiiNC-ECHO initiative, an integrated network for chronic pain. Bringing these perspectives into the same space shifts the conversation—it moves from planning for people to planning with people —and often leads to more grounded, contextually relevant implementation approaches.
Third, we have seen small groups enrol as a team, even though they’re working on different initiatives and come from different organizations. They are self-selected groups of people who want to learn together and learn from each other. There’s something about people choosing to come together to support each other through what can feel like a challenging and overwhelming process of implementation that makes me feel very inspired and excited for the future.
Lessons learned from supporting teams through implementation science capacity building
Having seen many groups go through training together, here are some of the things that we have learned, patterns that seem to lead to groups being more successful.
Groups with a more experienced member who has already completed the training, supporting and facilitating conversations among participants, really help people apply course concepts to their own work.
Teams that meet between sessions to discuss learning seem to complete the modules faster.
Groups that have concrete examples and projects to work through seem to be able to apply the concepts in a more fulsome way.
Having a mix of roles, perspectives, and expertise enriches the discussions of these groups and seems to help a lot with role clarity across implementation initiatives.
Involving leaders, whether directly in the training or in the sessions between the training, helps move learning to action.
Strengthening implementation through collective learning
Implementation work is never done alone. It requires people with different roles and perspectives working together to support change. When teams build implementation science knowledge together, they develop shared language, stronger relationships, and clearer ways of working across initiatives. As more organizations, funders, and networks experiment with collective learning, we are excited to see how this approach can strengthen implementation and improve outcomes.
This article was featured in our monthly Implementation in Action bulletin! Want to receive our next issue? Subscribe here.