My career has been in science and education, but the actual work has always been the same: figuring out what makes people change how they do something, and building the training, materials, and evaluation that make the change stick. 

My research and leadership roles have examined exactly that question: "What causes a group of experienced professionals to adopt a new practice rather than quietly revert to the old one?" It became a professional development model used in district science PLCs. 

I've learned to treat resistance to change as information, not an obstacle. If a good idea isn't landing, something real is standing in the way, like clarity, time, support, resources, self-efficacy,  and autonomy. Good design accounts for the motivating factors and beliefs that affect behavior. Innovation without identifying and addressing the contextual factors impacting use is bound to fail. 

The measure I care about isn't just whether it appears good in theory; it's whether anyone's still using it in six months, 12 months, or 2 years later.