Monitoring and analysis of the change process in curriculum mapping compared to the National Competency-based Learning Objective Catalogue for Undergraduate Medical Education (NKLM) at four medical faculties. Part II: Key factors for motivating the faculty during the process

Objective: After adoption of the National Competency-based Learning Objectives Catalogue in Medicine [Nationaler Kompetenzbasierter Lernzielkatalog Medizin, NKLM], the German medical faculties are asked to test the learning obejctives recorded in it and evaluate them critically. The faculties require curricular transparency for competence-oriented transition of present curricula, which is best achieved by systematic curriculum mapping in comparison to the NKLM. Based on this inventory, curricula can be further developed target-oriented. Considerable resistance has to be expected when a complex existing curriculum is to be mapped for the first time and a faculty must be convinced of its usefulness. Headed by Tübingen, the faculties of Freiburg, Heidelberg, Mannheim and Tübingen rose to this task. This two-part article analyses and summarises how NKLM curriculum mapping was successful at the locations despite resistance. Part I presented the resources and structures that supported implementation. Part II focuses on factors that motivate individuals and groups of persons to cooperate in the faculties. Method: Both parts used the same method. In short, the joint project was systematically planned following the steps of project and change management and adjusted in the course of the process. From the beginning of the project, a Grounded-Theory approach was used to systematically collect detailed information on measures and developments at the faculties, to continually analyse them and to draw final conclusions. Results: At all sites, faculties, teachers, students and administrative staff were not per se willing to deal with the NKLM and its contents, and even less to map their present curricula. Analysis of the development reflected a number of factors that had either a negative effect on the willingness to cooperate when missing, or a positive one when present. These were: clear top-down and bottom-up management; continuous information of the faculty; user-oriented support in the mapping process by reduction of the mapping categories, portioning and condensation of the NKLM via student pre-mapping (blueprint) and visibility of growing consent. Apart from that, there were a series of frequent questions, objections and concerns that could be countered strategically and by argumentation. They particularly referred to relevance, benefit, feasibility and effort of curriculum mapping. Conclusion: An overview of beneficial framework conditions, strategies and results from different points of view is achieved and interrelations are made visible. Based on literature results, the motivating factors as well as their implementation and effects in the faculties involved are critically reflected on. Recommendations can be derived that can support other faculties in practice.