Home > Implementation for Educators Blog
Communication: An Essential Component within Implementation
Most of us, if not all, have played the Telephone Game, where a message is passed along through a whisper from one person to the next until the message reaches the last person who shares the message out loud. Very rarely is the message that is shared out at the end the same as the original message; the end message is most times distorted and quite amusing. Several things impact the message at the end. One being the message itself, is it relatable? Can it be understood? Another aspect was how the message was relayed; was it clear as it moved down the line? Just as with the Telephone Game, implementation is impacted by what is communicated, how well messages are passed along, and how effectively communication travels throughout the system.
Why is communication important?
The National Communication Association (2025) defines communication as “how people use messages to generate meanings within and across various contexts,” encompassing all formats and the consequences of these interactions. Let’s examine this as it relates to implementation. Communication is an essential component within implementation; it enables work within teams and connects teams across the system.
“…noticing communication helps us discover how to do implementation science better.” (Johnson et al., 2024)
Communication can be viewed in two ways: a transaction and a process (Johnson et al., 2024). As a transaction, communication is linear. It flows one way with the intent of relaying information from the sender to the intended receiver. Special attention may be given to how the information is delivered, in hopes that the most effective means is used to convey the message.
Communication, as a process, is more relational; it is shaped by the context in which it occurs. As a process, communication is established to be bi-directional, creating communication loops. Establishing communication as a process helps us focus on the practices and strategies used in implementation to identify what’s going well and to help us identify barriers to productively engage in problem-solving (Johnson et al., 2024).
What makes communication work?
Both transactional and process-oriented communication are essential throughout implementation and should evolve as teams progress through the nonlinear stages of exploration, installation, initial implementation, and full implementation. These communication types must align with and support the specific activities that drive movement through each stage.
Let’s look at this with a focus on Exploration. In the early stages of exploration, we may rely more on transactional communication. Information may be relayed to diverse individuals regarding an identified need to start building buy-in. As the team is established, communication becomes a process as the team begins setting goals. Communication may shift to become more transactional as the team engages in information sharing to identify current practices and structures, aiming to gain a common understanding of practices being implemented across agencies. As the team delves deeper into exploration and begins examining the fit and feasibility of implementing a practice or program, it proceeds with developing a plan. The implementation team will then need to identify the required engagement with diverse perspectives (NIRN, 2023). For some, communication will be transactional with the need being only to inform, while with others, it will require a deeper level of engagement to ensure communication is bi-directional.
How does effective communication happen?
As we engage in implementation work, from exploration to full implementation, it is essential to continually examine who needs to be involved and who will be impacted to identify diverse perspectives that are necessary at different levels throughout the system. Identifying these perspectives, the team can map the level of engagement required to build a linked system of communication for implementation. The identified level of engagement will drive the types of communication that need to occur. Let’s apply this to examine how transactional and process communication are part of implementation through a common occurrence in education.
In response to a new state mandate, the SEA begins developing structures to implement a new student support initiative through the Office of School Mental Health. The Director has executive authority over the initiative, with two section leads tasked with facilitating the work. A letter is sent to the Offices of School Improvement, Special Education, and Elementary Curriculum, as well as two state public health agencies, to invite them to be members of the state implementation team, communicating the need for their diverse perspectives. With the team in place, they begin identifying current initiatives to assess alignment across departments and agencies, and report back to the executive director before proposing programs that will be used for the initiative. Effective communication within the department and across state agencies, as well as within districts, will be crucial for developing the linked communication system for implementation. School districts receive notice of the new initiative, which provides information on the new legislation and the steps the Department is currently taking to support the student support initiative.
What’s needed to develop an effective communication system?
As implementation teams are formed, it’s important to establish structures for effective communication. It is essential to determine how communication will occur within the team. Using tools that serve as running agendas to capture notes during meetings can keep team members informed of priorities and past decisions. It is just as important to identify information that needs to be disseminated and the process-oriented communication that requires feedback loops.
A dissemination plan is created to identify and authentically engage with perspectives beyond the team, celebrating successes, providing information, building understanding, and expressing collective commitment to the various perspectives. A well-developed dissemination plan should identify the purpose of communication. This critical step helps identify what needs to be communicated, who needs to be included, the method to use, and when messages will be sent.
To link teams across the system, such as a state implementation team to a regional team or a district team to a building-level team, a communication protocol is developed to establish alignment and communication between the teams. Communication protocols should be developed from the lead agency down to the practice level to create a linked chain of protocols connecting teams at each level throughout the system. An effective protocol begins with the same structure as a dissemination plan, specifying the purpose, and then identifies what is communicated, by whom, when, and how. Additional components outline how and when responses will be relayed to establish feedback loops. This “chain” of feedback loops creates a mechanism to celebrate successes and address barriers throughout the system (Fixsen, Van Dyke, & Blase, 2024). Through these communication loops, barriers can be reported “up the line” to the appropriate level within the system, with actions taken to resolve the barrier and support it back down through different levels within the system.
Case Study: Buffalo Public Schools Math Department
Let’s hear from JaDawn Wagstaff, the Director of Mathematics in Buffalo Public Schools, to see how communication has been used to engage departments across the district to strengthen implementation of a new math curriculum.
Buffalo Public Schools Math Department participated in a root cause analysis process, resulting in a fishbone diagram, and identified a focus for our work for the upcoming school year. While participating in the root cause analysis, we began to identify missing pieces, one of which is the inclusion of stakeholders who need to be part of our planning, decision-making, and problem-solving processes, as they relate to everything we do as a curriculum department, not just specifically to the new adoption.
Now, in the first year of implementing a new mathematics curriculum resource for grades K through 8, the six-member mathematics department ensures that teachers receive the support they need during this critical year of implementation. Following our first District Capacity Assessment (DCA; Ward et al., 2015) with an expanded core team, we collectively agreed on the need for a District Implementation Team (DIT). Before the first meeting, a group was created within Microsoft Teams specifically for our DIT, where all our agendas, meeting notes, and shared documents are stored; this also provided us with a space to communicate with each other and/or post updates to the whole team. This first meeting proved beneficial as we reviewed how the implementation of the new curriculum began and progressed. There were some epiphanies regarding other stakeholders who need to be added to the team, as we are thinking long-term and considering the big picture in building capacity and sustaining implementation, not just our current or interim goals.
We established a meeting cadence and discussed the agenda for the subsequent two upcoming meetings. Our next steps are to review district survey data to help us shape a professional development plan that addresses teacher needs. All in all, we are well on our way toward having an implementation team that is representative of all stakeholders, that will soon develop a communication plan for this team, that falls in line with the district’s protocol for district-wide communications.
Communication is an ongoing process.
Let’s think back to the Telephone Game, where messages are often distorted as they move down the line. To avoid this issue with implementation, as demonstrated in the Buffalo Public Schools’ story, a well-developed communication system is necessary. The team established structures to ensure effective communication occurs within the team and created dissemination plans for effective and purposeful sharing of information. Whether implementation begins at the state level or at the district level, a linked teaming structure is required to ultimately impact student outcomes. Communication protocols create this linkage between teams within the system to ensure the communication flows in bi-directional loops.
Building an effective communication system takes time. Once communication practices and protocols are established and tried, they should be evaluated and adapted to support overall functionality and effectiveness, and should be revisited regularly. Creating a linked communication system supports alignment and cohesion within implementation that can impact performance and sustainability and have lasting impacts on outcomes for years to come (Fixsen, Van Dyke, & Blase, 2024).
Tools and Resources:
References
Fixsen, D. L., Van Dyke, M. K., & Blase, K. A. (2024). Implementation science for evidence-based policy. In B. C. Welsh, S. N. Zane, & D. P. Mears (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evidence-based crime and justice policy (pp. 58-75). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197618110.013.4
Johnson, N. L., Van Tiem, J., Balkenende, E., Jones, D., Friberg, J. E., Chasco, E. E., Moeckli, J., Steffensmeier, K. S., Steffen, M. J. A., Arora, K., Rabin, B. A., & Reisinger, H. S. (2024). Gaps in communication theory paradigms when conducting implementation science research: Qualitative observations from interviews with administrators, implementors, and evaluators of rural health programs. Implementation Science, 19(66). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01395-3
National Communication Association. (n.d.). What is communication? National Communication Association. Retrieved May 6, 2025, from https://www.natcom.org/about-nca/what-communication/
National Implementation Research Network. (2023). Guidance for engaging critical perspectives. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Retrieved May 6, 2025, from https://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/resource/guidance-for-engaging-critical-perspectives/Ward, C., St. Martin, K., Horner, R., Duda, M., Ingram-West, K., Tedesco, M., Putnam, D., Buenrostro, M., & Chaparro, E. (2015). District Capacity Assessment. National Implementation Research Network, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. https://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/resource/district-capacity-assessment-dca/