The A3 tool was introduced to the fellows by Pattie Skriba, former VP of business excellence for Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital, with more recent instruction provided by Nick Lavieri, assistant VP in the Lean Transformation Office of WellStar Health System, and his colleagues. I’ll describe the tool and discuss how it helps avoid some frequent pitfalls in problem-solving.
The tool used by the fellows is a nine-box problem-solving aid. This article contains a brief overview of each box.
Box 1 contains the problem statement. What problem are you trying to solve, and why is it important? A common pitfall is a problem statement that proposes a solution before the root cause of the problem is understood.
An example of a problem statement with this pitfall: First-line managers need to better coach their employees to improve employee engagement . The actual problem statement might be this: Employee engagement scores are low; raising engagement might address our high turnover rate. The latter statement allows exploration of ways to improve engagement. It doesn’t assume that the answer is to have more effective coaching.
Box 2 defines the current state. What are the symptoms of the current problem? What measures indicate your current poor performance? Are there trend data indicating declining performance? Are there relevant comparisons that indicate your poor performance relative to competitors or benchmarks? If the problem is an ineffective or inefficient process, you could include a current process map.
Box 3 identifies your desired future state. What will success look like in qualitative and quantitative terms? How will your organization perform when the problem is solved? What will performance metrics look like when the problem is satisfactorily resolved? For example, will the measures you identified in Box 2 have results that are 100% better than now?
Box 4 contains your root cause or gap analysis. What are the possible causes for the gap between boxes 2 and 3? What are the potential root causes of the problem you identified in Box 1? Helpful tools for performing this analysis might be the 5 whys, fishbone diagrams, or Pareto charts. Remember that there may be more than one root cause that needs addressing, or one root cause that should be a focus for your improvement.
Box 5 contains potential solutions to test. Box 5 is about hypotheses. Identify potential solutions for each root cause. Several root causes may have the same potential solution. Some solutions may yield much greater improvement than others. Some might need to be executed in parallel to gain the benefit desired.
Box 6 contains rapid experiments. Plan an experiment for each proposed solution. Design experiments with measurable results to see if they are positive predictors of achieving your desired (Box 3) state. Learn from your experiments and conduct additional rapid experiments, if needed. If none of your experiments yield positive results, return to boxes 5 and 6 to seek additional root causes or potential solutions. Communicate and share the results of your experiments with those who will benefit from solving the problem.
Box 7 is your completion plan to solve the problem. It’s based on the positive experimental outcomes from Box 6. Include an action plan with a timeline indicating what will be done, who will be responsible and involved, how progress will be measured, and completion dates for each action. Your completion plan should include a communication plan and a plan for sustaining the outcome.
The most common pitfall is jumping from Box 1 to Box 7. We are always eager to solve problems, and the temptation is great to skip boxes 2–5, thinking we know the answer. This could lead to a lot of wasted effort and resources, and great disappointment.
Box 8 is about confirming that you’ve of achieved the desired outcome/state. It summarizes what you’ve accomplished: metrics for the initial state, the target state, the actual result, and multiple confirmations of sustaining the performance (e.g., 30-, 60-, and 90-day results measures). If results aren’t sustained, you’ll need to reexamine earlier boxes.
Box 9 contains insights and lessons learned. What went well? What might you do differently next time you use the A3 tool? What effect has the outcome had on key internal and external stakeholders? What have you learned about change and resistance to change?
If you’re asking why you should use the A3 tool, let me give you a real-life example. A hotel was getting customer complaints due to cold and late delivery of room-service food. The average delivery time was measured (current state). The desired delivery time after food preparation was known (desired state), and the temptation was to explore the food preparation and delivery process and fix it (jumping to Box 7). By using the 5 whys (Box 4), the real problem was identified, solutions were tested, and the problem was solved.
The root cause was a shortage of bed linens.
Let’s look at the 5 whys: Why was food late and cold? Because delivery staff were waiting long times for an elevator. Why were they waiting long times for an elevator? Because the elevators were being locked on the floor with the laundry. Why were they being locked on the floor with the laundry? So linens could be delivered as rapidly as possible to rooms with guests waiting to check in. Why were guests waiting to check in? Because there was an insufficient supply of linens; they had to be washed, pressed, and immediately returned to guest rooms.
The solution to late and cold food? Buy additional linens!
What are your organization’s vexing problems? What are the real solutions to those problems?
Published June 11, 2024, by Blogrige : the Official Baldrige Blog.
Jul 1, 2024, 7:14 PM
When civil engineering students met to choose their senior capstone design projects, they all wanted to work with The Village at Glencliff (TVG), a respite community of 12 tiny homes for some of Nashville’s most medically vulnerable homeless citizens that provides a safe place to recover after a hospitalization. So, they created three projects for one client.
“Working with recovery patients from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, professional mentors, the Nashville Civic Design Center, and all the civil engineering seniors really made it feel like we were making an impact in Nashville,” said Ada Novak, who worked on a water reuse systems project. “The collaboration among all parties was the coolest part.”
Students designed three options to treat and recycle water for the tiny homes. Another team created Phase II site plans for TVG’s expansion and third team provided structural designs for multi-story and quadplex buildings for the expansion space. The local nonprofit has begun a fundraising campaign to add much-needed supportive housing to its campus on land donated by the Glencliff United Methodist Church.
“As a mentor, guiding future engineers as they tackled real-world water reuse challenges in our community for The Village of Glencliff was an honor and a privilege,” said Jennifer Osgood, P.E., senior vice president, CDM Smith, and an industry leader in water quality and treatment. “The students worked diligently and truly wanted to make an impact with their efforts.”
“Working with Jennifer was so beneficial to understanding all the necessary water calculations and the current governmental policies and finances to consider when working on water projects for a client in Nashville,” said Novak, who accepted a job after graduation at engineering services company WSP USA in New York City.
The interdependence of the projects felt meaningful to the students, said Lori Troxel, professor of the practice of civil and environmental engineering and senior design adviser. “The teams had to collaborate and that’s frustrating at times, and a little more real world. Some teams were ahead, some weren’t. Their mentors said, ‘This is the way it is. Keep moving forward.’”
The structural design team evaluated a novel, thin-shell concrete hyperbolic paraboloid roof for the quadplexes that would increase the buildings’ efficiency by allowing rain capture, minimizing lifetime maintenance costs, and maximizing material strength. They produced a scaled model of the paraboloid roof that appealed to their mentors. “It was important to the team that this was not just an academic exercise. They were designing a building to meet actual needs of actual people,” said Dan Borsos, P.E., president emeritus of EMC Structural Engineers and team mentor.
“This project represented a big leap in their education. In class they had learned the theory–how to design a steel beam. In this project they moved on to how that beam functions in the building, how it interacts with other building elements, how to represent that beam in design documents, and what it will actually look like when completed. These are things an engineer typically learns in their first job. This senior project gave them a head start,” Borsos said.
The hillside site proved to be tricky. “Based on the feedback from the residents and our mentors, we were able to navigate structural design problems and site problems like stormwater management and ADA compliance,” senior Laura Kwon said. “It was exciting because the project was more than just an academic exercise. It was an opportunity to make a real difference in people’s lives.”
The development of soft skills, particularly communication and presentation abilities, are crucial in the engineering field. Final presentations to The Village at Glencliff’s leaders, mentors and at the Civic Design Center allowed students to practice public speaking skills and articulate their design process.
The students’ consideration of long-term impact showed they understood the importance of their work beyond the design phase. Students met with The Village at Glencliff Executive Director Julia Sutherland early in the process to understand how to shape their deliverables to be helpful to the nonprofit when seeking funding.
The multifaceted nature of the projects was an ideal example of what a senior design project could accomplish. “Our work with The Village at Glencliff epitomized all of the best things a senior design project can and is intended to be,” said senior Harmony Bickerton, who now works at CDM Smith.
While Phase II site work started before the students began their projects, it is likely to change, Sutherland said. “When we shared our dream with the students we said, ‘We’ll see what they come back with.’”
Impressed by the final presentations, “It won’t be far off,” Sutherland said.
Contact: [email protected]
Front page layout
Biden rushes to avert labor shortage with chips act funding for workers, to dodge labor shortage, us finally aims chips act funding at training workers..
Ashley Belanger - Jul 2, 2024 3:59 pm UTC
In the hopes of dodging a significant projected worker shortage in the next few years, the Biden administration will finally start funding workforce development projects to support America's ambitions to become the world's leading chipmaker through historic CHIPS and Science Act investments.
The Workforce Partner Alliance (WFPA) will be established through the CHIPS Act's first round of funding focused on workers, officials confirmed in a press release . The program is designed to "focus on closing workforce and skills gaps in the US for researchers, engineers, and technicians across semiconductor design, manufacturing, and production," a program requirements page said.
Bloomberg reported that the US risks a technician shortage reaching 90,000 by 2030. This differs slightly from Natcast's forecast, which found that out of "238,000 jobs the industry is projected to create by 2030," the semiconductor industry "will be unable to fill more than 67,000."
Whatever the industry demand will actually be, with a projected tens of thousands of jobs needing to be filled just as the country is hoping to produce more chips than ever, the Biden administration is hoping to quickly train enough workers to fill openings for "researchers, engineers, and technicians across semiconductor design, manufacturing, and production," a WFPA site said.
To do this, a "wide range of workforce solution providers" are encouraged to submit "high-impact" WFPA project proposals that can be completed within two years, with total budgets of between $500,000 and $2 million per award, the press release said.
Examples of "evidence-based workforce development strategies and methodologies that may be considered for this program" include registered apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs, colleges or universities offering semiconductor industry-relevant degrees, programs combining on-the-job training with effective education or mentorship, and "experiential learning opportunities such as co-ops, externships, internships, or capstone projects." While programs supporting construction activities will not be considered, programs designed to "reduce barriers" to entry in the semiconductor industry can use funding to support workers' training, such as for providing childcare or transportation for workers.
"Making investments in the US semiconductor workforce is an opportunity to serve underserved communities, to connect individuals to good-paying sustainable jobs across the country, and to develop a robust workforce ecosystem that supports an industry essential to the national and economic security of the US," Natcast said.
Between four to 10 projects will be selected, providing opportunities for "established programs with a track record of success seeking to scale," as well as for newer programs "that meet a previously unaddressed need, opportunity, or theory of change" to be launched or substantially expanded.
The deadline to apply for funding is July 26, which gives applicants less than one month to get their proposals together. Applicants must have a presence in the US but can include for-profit organizations, accredited education institutions, training programs, state and local government agencies, and nonprofit organizations, Natcast's eligibility requirements said.
Natcast—the nonprofit entity created to operate the National Semiconductor Technology Center Consortium—will manage the WFPA. An FAQ will be provided soon, Natcast said, but in the meantime, the agency is giving a brief window to submit questions about the program. Curious applicants can send questions to [email protected] until 11:59 pm ET on July 9.
Awardees will be notified by early fall, Natcast said.
In Natcast's press release, Deirdre Hanford, Natcast's CEO, said that the WFPA will "accelerate progress in the US semiconductor industry by tackling its most critical challenges, including the need for a highly skilled workforce that can meet the evolving demands of the industry."
And the senior manager of Natcast's workforce development programs, Michael Barnes, said that the WFPA will be critical to accelerating the industry's growth in the US.
"It is imperative that we develop a domestic semiconductor workforce ecosystem that can support the industry’s anticipated growth and strengthen American national security, economic prosperity, and global competitiveness," Barnes said.
Channel ars technica.
A foundational 1984 decision required courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes, underpinning regulations on health care, safety and the environment.
Adam Liptak
Reporting on the Supreme Court since 2008
The Supreme Court swept aside a longstanding legal precedent on Friday, reducing the power of executive agencies and endangering countless regulations by transferring power from the executive branch to Congress and the courts. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said that “agencies have no special competence” and that judges should determine the meaning of federal laws.
The precedent, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council , is one of the most cited in American law, underpinning 70 Supreme Court decisions and roughly 17,000 in the lower courts. Critics of regulatory authority immediately hailed the decision, suggesting it could open new avenues to challenge federal rules in areas ranging from abortion pills to the environment.
The court has now overturned major precedents in each of the last three terms: on abortion in 2022, on affirmative action in 2023 and now on the power of administrative agencies. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan said the ruling amounted to the Supreme Court’s latest judicial power grab. “A rule of judicial humility,” she wrote, “gives way to a rule of judicial hubris.”
Here’s what else to know:
What is Chevron deference? It is the principle from the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling that gave regulatory agencies leeway to interpret laws that Congress had left vague. When Congress passes a law, it cannot anticipate all the ways that the economy, the nation and the world will change. If regulators had only the powers that Congress explicitly gave them, many regulations would be vulnerable to legal challenges. The ruling could have broad implications for the regulation of food and drugs , the banking and financial sector , taxation , as well as conservative activists’ targeting of medication abortion and rights for transgender people .
A major goal of the conservative legal movement: Friday’s ruling undoes a precedent that empowered executive branch agencies, which many conservatives have come to believe are dominated by liberals under both parties’ administrations — a critique often described as “the deep state.” Elizabeth Murrill, the Republican attorney general of Louisiana who has taken a leading role in lawsuits against the Biden administration’s environmental regulations, said Chevron deference had been “wildly abused by this administration more than any other.” Read about conservatives’ view of the precedent.
The White House reaction: Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said Friday’s decision was the latest example of the Supreme Court siding with Republican-backed special interests to block “common-sense rules that keep us safe, protect our health and environment, safeguard our financial system, and support American consumers and workers.”
Supporters of regulatory oversight criticized the decision: Critics of the decision said it would empower the courts, not Congress, to dictate policy. “Getting rid of Chevron deference says, you know what? The courts will be the decider of how to interpret these laws instead of experts who are knowledgeable in the field,” said Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, who sits on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
The case started with fishermen: The court heard two almost identical cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. Both cases involved a 1976 federal law that requires herring boats to carry federal observers to collect data used to prevent overfishing.
Under a 2020 regulation interpreting the law, owners of the boats were required not only to transport the observers but also to pay $700 a day for their oversight. Fishermen in New Jersey and Rhode Island — backed by two conservative organizations that decry the “administrative state” — sued, saying the 1976 law did not authorize the relevant agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, to impose the fee.
Charlie Savage
Overturning the Chevron deference precedent is just the latest in a series of ringing blows the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed conservative bloc has delivered to the ability of regulatory agencies to impose rules on powerful business interests, advancing a longstanding goal of the conservative legal movement and the donors who have funded its rise .
Just yesterday, the majority struck down the ability of agencies to enforce their rules via in-house tribunals before technical-expert administrative judges. Instead, it ruled, agencies must sue accused malefactors in federal court before juries.
In recent years, the Republican majority has also made it easier to sue agencies and get their rules struck down, including by advancing the so-called major questions doctrine. Under that idea, courts should nullify economically significant regulations if judges decided Congress was not clear enough in authorizing them.
Advancing and entrenching that idea, the court has struck down an E.P.A. rule aimed at limiting carbon pollution from power plants , and barred the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from telling large employers they must either have their workers vaccinated against the Covid-19 virus or have them undergo frequent testing.
And in a 2020 ruling , the five Republican appointees then on the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the law Congress enacted to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that had protected its head from being fired by a president without a good cause, like misconduct.
Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said Friday’s decision was the latest example of the Supreme Court blocking “common-sense rules that keep us safe, protect our health and environment, safeguard our financial system, and support American consumers and workers.”
The court has not always gone as far as libertarians wanted, however. Earlier this term, the court rejected a challenge to the way the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is funded. Striking it down would have opened the door to lawsuits to nullify every regulation and enforcement action it has taken in its 13 years of existence, including ones concerning mortgages, credit cards, consumer loans and banking.
While overturning Chevron is now the capstone victory for the conservative legal movement’s assault on the administrative state, it may not be the end of the story. More extreme opponents of regulation hope the court will someday embrace a sweeping version of the so-called nondelegation doctrine.
Under that vision, the Constitution does not allow Congress to delegate any of its legislative authority to executive branch agencies. If so, all regulations should be struck down because the only way society can impose a legally binding rule on business interests is if Congress manages to specifically enact one via statute.
The ruling sweeps aside a legal precedent that required courts to defer to the expertise of federal administrators in carrying out laws passed by Congress.
Advertisement
Deborah B. Solomon
Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, called the Supreme Court’s ruling “another deeply troubling decision that takes our country backwards” and the latest decision by the court to side with Republican-backed special interests and block commonsense rules on health, the enviroment and worker protection.
She said in a statement that President Biden had directed his legal team to work with the Justice Department and other lawyers “to review today’s decision carefully and ensure that our administration is doing everything we can to continue to deploy the extraordinary expertise of the federal workforce to keep Americans safe and ensure communities thrive and prosper.”
Coral Davenport
The Chevron decision is the latest major blow in a yearslong coordinated strategy to weaken the authority of what conservative activists call the “administrative state.” One big step came two years ago, with the Supreme Court decision in West Virginia vs. E.P.A., sharply curtailing the agency’s authority to regulate climate-warming pollution from power plants. That ruling essentially told regulators to stay in their lane and not attempt broader interpretations of the law.
The Chevron decision advances that precedent, essentially applying it to all regulations, large and small. Together, experts say that the two rulings could mean that more government regulations are struck down or scaled back by the courts, and that government agencies could be more timid or restrained in writing new rules.
Christina Jewett
The possibility of new limits on the regulatory power of the federal government had already spurred one state to identify regulations ripe for a challenge.
A law passed in Utah directs agriculture and environmental agencies to identify federal rules carried out in the state that might be vulnerable under a ruling that limits the Chevron precedent. The analyses are due at the start of 2025 and the law says the state attorney general will issue his own report by midyear to declare his plans for possible lawsuits.
Sean D. Reyes, the Utah attorney general, has made well known his distaste for the Chevron precedent, which gives federal agencies leeway to interpret laws that Congress left vague. In a news release, he called the standard “one of the greatest threats to individual liberty.”
“For far too long, it has been wielded by big government proponents, unaccountable federal bureaucrats, and activist courts to destroy the freedoms of hard-working Americans and rob local control from our states,” he said in a statement in August.
Mr. Reyes signed on with about two dozen other Republican attorneys general to a friend-of-the-court brief decrying the onus on small businesses, the vast costs and the volume of regulations, which they said vastly outpace the number of laws passed by Congress, though that has been on a downward trend for decades.
Utah is not entirely alone in its war room crouch, said Gary Feldon, an attorney with Hollingsworth who noted Utah’s work in a recent article anticipating the ruling.
“I don’t know that anybody is doing it quite as systemically as the state of Utah seems to be, but industry and businesses are certainly aware that we are on the edge of a major shift,” Mr. Feldon said. “And the savvy among them are making sure that they’re in position to take advantage of it now.”
In addition to cutting back on the power of executive agencies, the Supreme Court on Friday issued decisions in two other closely watched cases: upholding a city’s laws aimed at banning homeless residents from sleeping outdoors and ruling that federal prosecutors had overstepped in using an obstruction law to prosecute a Jan. 6 rioter .
Teddy Rosenbluth and Roni Caryn Rabin
The Supreme Court decision overturning the so-called Chevron doctrine is likely to hamstring the federal government’s public health efforts and invite waves of litigation from parties opposed to regulations aimed at safeguarding Americans, scientific and legal experts said.
By gutting federal agencies’ power to interpret ambiguous laws and fill in gaps in statutes, forcing them instead to defer to protracted judicial or legislative processes, the ruling also could prevent regulators from acting quickly and creatively in the face of a catastrophic emergency, such as climate change or another deadly pandemic.
“We anticipate that today’s ruling will cause significant disruption to publicly funded health insurance programs, to the stability of this country’s health care and food and drug review systems, and to the health and well-being of the patients and consumers we serve,” several of the nation’s largest health organizations, including the American Public Health Association and the American Cancer Society, said in a joint statement on Friday.
Federal officials will feel a “chilling effect” that will slow regulations in areas in which they do not have explicit authority, said Dr. Reshma Ramachandran, co-director of the Yale Collaboration for Regulatory Rigor, Integrity and Transparency, an initiative that studies medical product evaluations and coverage in order to improve patient outcomes.
Instead of hiring more scientific and technological experts, federal agencies will have to arm themselves with lawyers, she predicted.
Zachary L. Baron, director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at the O’Neill Institute at Georgetown Law in Washington, said one result of the ruling “is likely to be an increase in litigation and an increase in uncertainty.”
“It seems like, as Justice Kagan wrote in her dissent, the court is flipping the script today, giving more authority to courts and judges and less authority to federal agencies and the expertise that they have,” Mr. Baron said.
Today’s ruling is one in a string of court decisions in recent years in which the court has given itself “more and more power over every significant policy dispute, and closing the door on agency experts that have been working on these issues for years,” he said.
Indeed, Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent offered an example of the type of detailed scientific question judges may now face in court: When does an alpha amino acid polymer qualify as a protein?
“I don’t know many judges who would feel confident resolving that issue,” she wrote. “(First question: What even is an alpha amino acid polymer?)”
The Food and Drug Administration, she added, has scores of experts who could “collaborate with each other on its finer points, and arrive at a sensible answer.”
The Chevron doctrine has its roots in public health: a 1984 Supreme Court case involving air pollution. At issue was the Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous provision in the Clean Air Act that affected companies subject to pollution controls.
The court determined that federal agencies should receive “deference” for reasonable interpretations of gaps or ambiguities in the statutes that Congress could not have anticipated when it crafted the laws.
The court gave federal agencies leeway because of their subject matter and scientific expertise, experience and political accountability.
Now that this authority has been curtailed, public health agencies simply may regulate less, a goal long sought by proponents of a smaller federal government and companies eager to pursue unfettered growth.
“If agencies know that everything they do that is not perfectly aligned with a statute will be scrutinized by the court, they will be less likely to promulgate expansive rules or swift rules,” said Selina Coleman, a health care partner at Reed Smith, a large law firm.
Other experts also predicted an explosion in litigation and uncertainty. The ruling will “signal to industry and aggressive state attorneys general to open the floodgates to more litigation to block federal regulatory efforts,” Mr. Baron said.
Moving public health decisions from federal agencies to Congress and the courts will lead to “incoherence, chaos and endless litigation,” said Paul Billings, national senior vice president of public policy at the American Lung Association.
The Supreme Court and lower courts have already chipped away at the authority of regulatory bodies to make public health decisions. Many such rulings were handed down during the coronavirus pandemic.
In November 2021, the Supreme Court upheld an injunction that barred the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from enforcing a national moratorium on evictions from rental housing, despite fears that a wave of such displacements would exacerbate the spread of Covid-19.
In January 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration could not require large businesses to vaccinate their employees against Covid. In April 2022, a federal judge in Florida struck down a C.D.C. mandate that required passengers to wear masks on public buses, trains and planes.
Today’s Supreme Court decision will task Congress with spelling out exactly what agencies like the C.D.C. can and cannot do, several observers said. “Nobody has any confidence that Congress can get its act together to do that,” said Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association.
“I think the decision as written solidifies employment for lawyers and judges, and undermines the authority of experts,” he added.
Other scientists also expressed doubt that Congress or the judiciary could remain abreast of constantly evolving scientific evidence. “To keep up with that pace of change, even for a medical or scientific professional, is very challenging,” said Karen Knudsen, chief executive of the American Cancer Society.
Consumer advocates are calling the decision a travesty that could upend the rules and regulations Americans depend upon for their safety.
“It’s going to affect everything from airbags in peoples’ cars to the quality of the food they feed their families and the water they drink,” said Stephen Hall, legal director of Better Markets, which pushes for tougher regulation. “This decision threatens to return the United States to the 1910s when the government had very limited ability to protect the health, safety, and welfare of America.”
Alan Rappeport
The Supreme Court’s knockdown of Chevron deference could complicate the ability of the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service to craft federal regulations that are central to President Biden’s economic agenda.
The Treasury Department is responsible for implementing major pieces of legislation such as the Inflation Reduction Act, including determining who qualifies for billions of dollars worth of tax credits. At the same time, the I.R.S. has vast leeway to administer the tax code. The agency has faced criticism recently for its decision to halt some pandemic relief tax credits to businesses because of concerns about fraud and delaying collection of new taxes on digital wallet transactions.
“Taxpayers are likely to challenge the validity of dozens of tax regulations and those challenges are much more likely to prevail,” said Robert J. Kovacev, a lawyer at the firm Miller & Chevalier who specializes in tax litigation and represents businesses engaged in disputes with the tax agency. “For years the I.R.S. has issued regulations expanding its power and restricting tax benefits that Congress intended taxpayers to receive.”
The ruling will also present new challenges as the Biden administration rolls out its alternative energy credit regulations, Mr. Kovacev said, because the I.R.S. will not be able to take for granted that courts will defer to its regulations.
The Tax Policy Center said in an analysis last fall that such a Supreme Court decision would make it harder for an agency such as the I.R.S. to write rules to address industries that are quickly evolving, such as cryptocurrencies, and that it would be more difficult to fill in the gaps for Congress when lawmakers rush to write tax legislation.
Critics of the tax agency said on Friday expressed optimism the ruling would limit its powers.
“Today’s decision will level the playing field for taxpayers and government agencies,” said Joe Bishop-Henchman, executive vice president at the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. “Unreasonable I.R.S. interpretations will no longer automatically win in court, which is as it should be, and reasonable interpretations will still have the force of law.”
Treasury Department and the I.R.S. did not immediately have a comment.
Former top Trump officials are gloating about the overturning of the Chevron doctrine. Mandy Gunasekara, who served as chief of staff at the E.P.A. during the Trump administration and has helped write Project 2025 , a policy blueprint for a next Republican administration, wrote on the social media site X, that the era of “trust the experts” had ended. She called it a “great day for our constitutional integrity and the American people.”
Chris Cameron
House Republican leadership praised the Supreme Court ending the Chevron doctrine. “House Republican committees will be conducting oversight to ensure agencies follow the Court’s ruling,” Speaker Mike Johnson wrote in a joint statement with Representatives Steve Scalise and Tom Emmer.
Elizabeth Dias
Conservative Christian activists and lawyers are celebrating the Chevron decision as a significant win for their ambitions to target medication abortion and rights for transgender people.
Anti-abortion activists see the ruling as a critical tool to fight the Food and Drug Administration, especially after the court rejected their bid to undo the F.D.A.’s approval of a medication abortion drug earlier in June. “Getting rid of Chevron is the first domino to fall,” Kristi Hamrick, a strategist for Students for Life, said in a statement.
They see the decision as a new precedent as they seek to bring a future case against the F.D.A. to the Supreme Court. Ms. Hamrick said such a case was likely to get a better reception “when the F.D.A. is no longer given the benefit of the doubt.”
The Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative Christian legal advocacy group that argued against the F.D.A.’s approval of the abortion pill and lost, also praised the ruling.
Federal agencies “frequently disrespect Americans’ most cherished principles — including religious freedom and the sanctity of life,” said Julie Marie Blake, senior counsel at A.D.F. “Now, the court has wiped away a major roadblock that prevented Americans from holding government officials accountable.”
A.D.F. had filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of Christian Employers Alliance, a group that defends freedoms for Christian businesses. The brief criticized a range of federal agencies, including the Department of Education and Health and Human Services, for what it said was the agencies’ efforts on “ending women’s sports” to imposing “radical gender ideology” to “forcing employers to pay for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and amputating healthy organs.”
Now, the brief’s argument looks like a road map for what lawyers may want to pursue with Chevron gone.
Business groups are cheering the Chevron decision. The National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small businesses, said the Supreme Court’s ruling will allow companies “to breathe a sigh of relief.”
“For 40 years, Chevron deference has allowed administrative agencies to enact regulations with little accountability,” Beth Milito, Executive Director of NFIB’s Small Business Legal Center, said in a statement. “Abandoning Chevron will hold agencies accountable and level the playing field in court cases between small businesses and administrative agencies.”
The Biden administration has been preparing for the overturn of Chevron, knowing that conservative activists have pushed cases like this, and that the majority of justices on the Supreme Court were expected to look favorably on it.
That’s why two years ago the White House worked with congressional Democrats to squeeze through legislation that could help protect the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to craft climate change regulations, even if the Chevron doctrine was struck down.
Climate change rules could be particularly vulnerable to legal attack in a post- Chevron world. That’s because the E.P.A. wrote them under the authority of the 1970 Clean Air Act, a sweeping law that directs the agency to regulate all pollutants that endanger human health.
But the legislators of 1970 did not specify anywhere in the law that carbon dioxide emissions, the chief cause of climate change, should be regulated. It doesn’t even mention climate change.
Democrats changed that in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, a law chiefly focused on spending billions of dollars on clean energy technology to fight climate change. But the law amends the Clean Air Act to define the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels as an “air pollutant.”
That language, according to legal experts as well as the Democrats who worked it into the legislation, explicitly gives the E.P.A. the authority to regulate greenhouse gases and to use its power to push the adoption of wind, solar and other renewable energy sources.
The specificity of that legal language should protect E.P.A.’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide pollution by limiting their emission from tailpipes and smokestacks.
However, opponents of the rule — chiefly, the fossil fuel industry — are still expected to use the demise of the Chevron doctrine to attempt to weaken the specifics of those rules.
Overturning Chevron is just the latest in a series of ringing blows the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed conservative bloc has delivered to the ability of regulatory agencies to impose rules on powerful business interests, advancing a long-standing goal of the conservative legal movement and the donors who have funded its rise . Here are some previous steps:
In recent years, the Republican majority has also made it easier to sue agencies and get their rules struck down, including by advancing the so-called major questions doctrine. Under that idea, courts should nullify economically significant regulations if judges decided Congress was not clear enough in authorizing them. Advancing and entrenching that idea, the court has struck down an E.P.A. rule aimed at limiting carbon pollution from power plants , and barred the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from telling large employers they must either have their workers vaccinated against the Covid-19 virus or have them undergo frequent testing.
After taking aim at abortion and affirmative action, the conservative legal movement set its sights on a third precedent: Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council .
The 1984 decision, one of the most cited in American law but largely unknown to the public, bolstered the power of executive agencies that regulate the environment, the marketplace, the work force, the airwaves and countless other aspects of modern life. Overturning it was a key goal of the right and is part of a project to demolish the “administrative state.”
The decision rejecting Chevron threatens regulations covering — just for starters — health care, consumer safety, government benefit programs and climate change.
Chevron — and bear with me here, this will hurt only for a minute — established the principle that courts must defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The theory is that agencies have more expertise than judges, are more accountable to voters and are better able to establish uniform national policies.
“Judges are not experts in the field, and are not part of either political branch of the government,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in 1984 for a unanimous court (though three of its justices recused for reasons of health or financial conflict). Justice Stevens later said of the opinion , which was easily his most influential, that it was “simply a restatement of existing law.”
The decision was not much noted when it was issued. “If Chevron amounted to a revolution, it seems almost everyone missed it,” Justice Neil Gorsuch, the harshest critic of the doctrine on the current court, wrote in 2022 , saying that courts had read it too broadly.
At first, conservatives believed that empowering agencies would constrain liberal judges. So the Reagan administration, which had interpreted the Clean Air Act to allow looser regulations of emissions, celebrated the decision.
Justice Stevens, rejecting a challenge from environmental groups, wrote that the Environmental Protection Agency’s reading of the statute was “a reasonable construction” that was “entitled to deference.”
The head of the E.P.A. when the regulation was issued? Anne Gorsuch, Justice Gorsuch’s mother.
Most surprisingly, given its current bad odor with the right, Chevron was at least initially championed, celebrated and elevated by Justice Antonin Scalia, a revered conservative figure who died in 2016 . “In the long run Chevron will endure and be given its full scope,” he wrote in a law review article in 1989, adding that this was so “because it more accurately reflects the reality of government.”
What, then, accounted for the decision’s place on the conservative hit list? After all, as the case itself demonstrates, it requires deference to agency interpretations under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
The answers are practical, cultural and philosophical. Business groups on the whole remain hostile to regulation. Many conservatives have come to believe that executive agencies are dominated by liberals under both parties’ administrations — the shorthand for this critique is “the deep state.” And some on the right have become hostile to the very idea of expertise.
The majority opinion by Justice Roberts notes: “Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.” Justice Elana Kagan, in a fiery dissent, disagreed and predicted “large-scale disruption,” as judges are called upon to answer questions that expert agencies have been entrusted to handle.
Ken Bensinger
Conservative pundits, already celebrating last night’s debate, are now in a mood of downright jubilation after the Supreme Court’s rulings today rolling back the power of regulatory agencies and overturning the Justice Department’s use of an obstruction statute in the January 6 criminal cases. “Huge, huge 24 hours for Donald Trump/GOP WOW,” wrote Megyn Kelly, the right-wing podcaster and former Fox anchor.
Stacy Cowley and Emily Flitter
The end of Chevron deference is a boon for banking lobbyists, who have in recent years intensified their pushback against the agencies that oversee them — especially the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, one of the industry’s most aggressive regulators.
The consumer bureau’s interpretations “may now be subject to heightened attack and may require far more justification than formerly was the case,” said Joseph Lynyak, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney who specializes in financial regulation.
While the decision will complicate regulators’ jobs, its effects will likely seem familiar to them. Losing the Chevron deference will amplify a shift already underway in the lower courts, which have in recent years been receptive to lawsuits challenging financial regulators’ actions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in particular — and the federal courts under its purview — has been a major roadblock, preventing the bureau from imposing credit card late fee limits and expanding its interpretation of anti- discrimination laws .
One recent action that may now be ripe for a challenge is the bureau’s decision that Buy Now, Pay Later lenders are credit card providers, giving buyers a right to dispute charges and demand refunds.
“Because this interpretive rule pushes the envelope past existing law into pure agency interpretation, it will be an attractive target for industry challenge,” said Erin Bryan, another partner at Dorsey & Whitney.
In addition to the C.F.P.B., trade groups representing banks have sued other federal bank regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve. They have challenged those regulators over a host of rules, from a sweeping anti-redlining regulation to one requiring banks to disclose detailed data about their small business loans.
Outside advocacy groups have also gotten into the habit of suing the regulators, though the bulk of their activity took place during the Trump administration, when proponents of stricter financial regulation felt that government officials were unlawfully loosening rules on banks and other firms. Their preferred appeals circuit was the Ninth; they often filed federal court cases in the Northern District of California, where they expected judges to treat their arguments favorably.
Both sides won rulings by judges who declined to defer to the regulators.
“A court can always avoid getting to the Chevron deference in the first place by saying that a statute is not ambiguous, and that’s what happens the vast majority of the time,” said Randy Benjenk, a partner at Covington & Burling who focuses on financial regulation.
“In practice it’s been rare for a judge to conclude that a statute is ambiguous and defer to an agency’s interpretation of law. Judges routinely reach their own interpretations that contradict the agencies. That’s true in courts nationwide, whether in Texas, California or anywhere else.”
The Food and Drug Administration, which oversees a vast swath of items people use every day, is expected to see an increase — perhaps an onslaught — of lawsuits following the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday.
“This is disastrous for public health. This is disastrous for the critical role of science-based regulatory agencies,” said Mitch Zeller, a former F.D.A. associate commissioner and tobacco division director. “Chevron has worked well for half a century and makes a lot of sense.”
Challenges could range from whether tainted spinach can be traced back to a farm to the very core of the F.D.A.’s decisions on whether drugs are safe and effective enough to be sold in the United States.
“F.D.A. has always been called the gold standard for product approval throughout the world,” said Perham Gorji, a partner at the law firm DLA Piper and former deputy chief counsel at the F.D.A. “Less deference to F.D.A. is going to obviously change what’s available in terms of products that are available here in the United States.”
The agency employs about 18,000 people, many of whom are doctors or have advanced degrees in biostatistics, chemistry and toxicology. Given the complexity of some scientific decisions the agency makes, attorneys who focus on the F.D.A. said initial challenges might focus on areas in which the F.D.A. exerts policy clout, including some that touch on drug pricing.
Chad Landmon, an attorney with Axinn who leads the F.D.A. practice group, predicted that early lawsuits could stem from a mix of problems companies face.
“I think companies are going to be much more aggressive and generally are going to be looking for opportunities to challenge the F.D.A.,” Mr. Landmon said.
Others expect a broad onslaught from tobacco companies regulated by the agency. “I would expect the tobacco industry to target every aspect of the F.D.A.’s regulatory infrastructure,” said Desmond Jensen of the Public Health Law Center. The agency decides which e-cigarettes are authorized for sale and can reject new cigarettes that could attract new smokers.
Limits on Chevron are widely thought to favor industry, but the reality could be more complex if advocacy groups gear up, said Nick Shipley, a former lobbyist for BIO and PhRMA and the founder of Cronus Consulting. He cited the group that challenged the F.D.A.’s approval of abortion medications .
“Industry,” he said, “could be caught in the crossfire.”
While the Chevron decision could imperil the standing of hundreds of recent and future regulations, Chief Justice Roberts was careful to write in his opinion that the decision is not retroactive.
Justice Roberts wrote that it does “not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful — including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself — are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite our change in interpretive methodology.”
Coral Davenport , Christina Jewett , Alan Rappeport , Margot Sanger-Katz , Noam Scheiber and Noah Weiland
The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday to limit the broad regulatory authority of federal agencies could lead to the elimination or weakening of thousands of rules on the environment, health care, worker protection, food and drug safety, telecommunications, the financial sector and more.
The decision is a major victory in a decades-long campaign by conservative activists to shrink the power of the federal government, limiting the reach and authority of what those activists call “the administrative state.”
The court’s opinion could make it easier for opponents of federal regulations to challenge them in court, prompting a rush of new litigation, while also injecting uncertainty into businesses and industries.
“If Americans are worried about their drinking water, their health, their retirement account, discrimination on the job, if they fly on a plane, drive a car, if they go outside and breathe the air — all of these day-to-day activities are run through a massive universe of federal agency regulations,” said Lisa Heinzerling, an expert in administrative law at Georgetown University. “And this decision now means that more of those regulations could be struck down by the courts.”
The decision effectively ends a legal precedent known as “Chevron deference,” after a 1984 Supreme Court ruling. That decision held that when Congress passes a law that lacks specificity, courts must give wide leeway to decisions made by the federal agencies charged with implementing that law. The theory was that scientists, economists and other specialists at the agencies have more expertise than judges in determining regulations and that the executive branch is also more accountable to voters.
Since then, thousands of legal decisions have relied on the Chevron doctrine when challenges have been made to regulations stemming from laws like the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, the 1970 Clean Air Act , the 2010 Affordable Care Act and others.
In writing laws, Congress has frequently used open-ended directives, such as “ensuring the rule is in the public interest,” leaving it to agency experts to write rules to limit toxic smog, ensure that health plans cover basic medical services, ensure the safety of drugs and cosmetics and protect consumers from risky corporate financial behavior.
But that gave too much power to unelected government officials, according to conservatives, who ran a coordinated, multiyear campaign to end the Chevron doctrine. They believe the courts, not administrative agencies, should have the power to interpret statutes. The effort was led by Republican attorneys general, conservative legal activists and their funders, several with ties to large corporations, and supporters of former President Donald J. Trump.
“Overturning Chevron was a shared goal of the conservative movement and the Trump administration. It was expressed constantly,” said Mandy Gunasekara, who served as chief of staff at the E.P.A. under President Trump and has helped write Project 2025 , a policy blueprint for a next Republican administration. “It creates a massive opportunity for these regulations to be challenged. And it could galvanize additional momentum toward reining in the administrative state writ large if the administration changes in November.”
Still, Jonathan Berry, who served as a senior Labor Department official under Mr. Trump, noted that overturning the Chevron doctrine itself “doesn’t immediately blow anything up.”
Rather, Mr. Berry said, the fate of the regulations will be determined by what happens when they start moving through the courts without the protection of Chevron. “The mystery is exactly how much of this stuff goes down,” Mr. Berry said.
Here is a look at how the decision might affect various government agencies.
Environmentalists fear that the end of the Chevron doctrine will mean the elimination of hundreds of E.P.A. rules aimed at limiting air and water pollution, protecting people from toxic chemicals and, especially, tackling climate change.
Over the past six months, the Biden administration has issued the most ambitious rules in the country’s history aimed at cutting climate-warming pollution from cars , trucks , power plants and oil and gas wells . Without those rules, it would very likely be impossible for President Biden to achieve his goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by the end of the decade, which analysts say all major economies must do to avoid the most deadly and catastrophic impacts of global warming.
All of the Biden climate rules have already been the target of lawsuits that are winding their way through the courts.
Legal experts say that the reversal of Chevron will not remove E.P.A.’s foundational legal obligation to regulate climate-warming pollution: that was explicitly detailed in a 2007 Supreme Court decision and in 2022 legislation passed by Democrats in anticipation of challenges to that authority.
But the specific regulations — such those designed to cut car and truck pollution by accelerating the transition to electric vehicles, or to slash power plant pollution with the use of costly carbon capture and sequestration technology — could now be more legally vulnerable.
The result would quite likely be that stringent climate rules designed to sharply reduce emissions could be replaced by much looser rules that cut far less pollution. Experts say that could also be the fate of existing rules on smog, clean water and hazardous chemicals.
The elimination of the Chevron deference could affect workers in a variety of ways, making it harder for the government to enact workplace safety regulations and enforce minimum wage and overtime rules.
One recent example was in April, when the Biden administration raised the salary level below which salaried workers automatically become eligible for time-and-a-half overtime pay, to nearly $59,000 per year from about $35,000, beginning on Jan. 1. Business groups have challenged the Labor Department’s authority to set a so-called salary threshold and such challenges will have far better odds of success without the Chevron precedent, experts said.
The shift could also rein in protections for workers who publicly challenge the policies of their employers, according to Charlotte Garden, a professor of labor law at the University of Minnesota. The National Labor Relations Board often concludes that a single worker has the right to protest low pay or harassment or attendance policies without being disciplined or fired. But the relevant law refers to “concerted activities,” meaning the protection may now apply only to groups of employees who stage such protests, not individuals, Professor Garden said.
The Food and Drug Administration flexes significant power when it sets the standards for how new drugs must be studied and whether they are safe and effective before they are approved for use. Attorneys who worked at the agency said that companies chafing at that high bar for approvals might now challenge those regulations. Others said legal challenges could ultimately affect drug prices.
Challenges are also expected in the agency’s tobacco division, which authorizes the sale of new cigarettes and e-cigarettes with the intent to protect public health. “I would expect the industry to attack the F.D.A.’s authority to do premarket review at all,” said Desmond Jenson, deputy director of the commercial tobacco control program at the Public Health Law Center.
Others noted the Chevron decision could have a chilling effect, compelling the F.D.A. to proceed quite carefully, given the potential for litigation, if it moves forward with proposals to ban menthol cigarettes or make them less addictive by slashing nicotine levels.
Abortion opponents say the ruling could work in their favor as they seek to bring another case against the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of an abortion medication to the Supreme Court, which rejected their effort to undo the agency’s approval of the drug this month.
Kristi Hamrick, a strategist for Students for Life of America, an anti-abortion organization, said in a statement that such a case was likely to get a better reception “when the F.D.A. is no longer given the benefit of the doubt.”
The court’s ruling could affect how Medicare, Medicaid and Affordable Care Act insurance plans are administered, health law experts said, as opponents gain an opportunity to challenge how these huge programs operate.
The health care system is governed by elaborate regulations covering how hospitals operate, what providers are paid for medical services and how insurance companies are monitored by the government. Much of that regulation is grounded in interpretation of laws that date back decades. Major industries could be affected if rules are changed.
“There’s an awful lot of regulation that flies under the radar that’s just about making sure the trains run on time,” said Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan.
Rachel Sachs, a health law expert at the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, said that the complex set of rules devised and governed by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services could be challenged in new ways.
“There’s a lot of work to do in that process,” she said. “And therefore there are a lot of opportunities for challengers to pick at specific choices that C.M.S. and H.H.S. are making in the interpretation of these rules.”
The Supreme Court decision will require Congress to specify exactly what agencies like the C.D.C. can and cannot do, several analysts said. “Nobody has any confidence that Congress can get its act together to do that,” said Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association.
The Biden administration has written health regulations anticipating a world without the Chevron deference, said Abbe R. Gluck, a health law expert at Yale Law School who served in the White House at the beginning of Mr. Biden’s term. For that reason, she thinks litigation over the most recent rules may be less influenced by this change than challenges concerning some older regulations.
“The Supreme Court has not relied on Chevron in quite a few years,” she said. “So the federal government, including H.H.S., has become accustomed to drafting regulations and making its interpretation arguments as if Chevron did not exist.”
“They’ve already adjusted,” Ms. Gluck said.
The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service both have broad mandates to interpret legislation when they write rules and regulations and enforce the tax code.
Since the Inflation Reduction Act passed in 2022, the Treasury Department has been racing to roll out regulations related to billions of dollars of clean energy tax credits that provide huge incentives for things such as the manufacturing of batteries or the purchase of electric vehicles. The Treasury Department has received pushback from some lawmakers who contend that it has not followed the intent of the law.
Although Congress creates the tax code through legislation, the I.R.S. has wide latitude in how the tax laws are administered. Accounting experts have suggested that the court’s ruling could complicate the agency’s ability to administer the tax code without specific direction from Congress.
A recent example is how the agency last year delayed enforcement of a contentious tax policy that would require users of digital wallets and e-commerce platforms to report small transactions. The new provision was introduced in the tax code in 2021 but was strongly opposed by lobbyists and small businesses.
The I.R.S. received criticism from some lawmakers for delaying the policy, but the agency defended its decision by arguing that taxpayers needed a longer transition period before the measure should be enforced to avoid a chaotic tax season.
Elizabeth Dias , Teddy Rosenbluth and Roni Rabin contributed reporting.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Capstone Project Examples. Below, we've listed 150 capstone project examples in various fields. Think of all of these focus questions and ideas as jumping-off points. Some are very broad, while others are much more specific. Your capstone project will most likely fall under the "specific" category (see "feasibility and scope" above ...
Step 7: Go over your paper one more time. Review and make necessary revisions to your paper. Check for clarity, completeness, and coherence. Ensure that your outline reflects the scope and depth of your project. 💡 Extra tip: Seek feedback from your capstone project supervisor, peers, or mentors.
A capstone project is a culmination of your academic journey, designed to assess the cumulative knowledge and skills you have gained. It is an integral part of academics, often requiring an interdisciplinary approach to solve a problem or contribute to your field. This project not only tests your competencies but also prepares you for real ...
Engineering and Technology Capstone Project Ideas. Solar-Powered Water Desalination System: Design a sustainable solution to convert seawater into freshwater using solar energy. Autonomous Drone for Environmental Monitoring: Develop a drone equipped with sensors to monitor air and water quality, wildlife, or deforestation.
Key Takeaways. Understand the purpose and scope of a capstone project to align it with academic and career goals. Choose a relevant and impactful topic by identifying your interests and conducting preliminary research. Develop a clear research proposal with a well-formulated question, objectives, and methodology.
Understand the unique purpose and importance of a capstone project proposal in academic programs. Choose a relevant and feasible research topic that aligns with your academic and career goals. Structure your proposal with essential components, logical flow, and adherence to formatting guidelines. Conduct a thorough literature review to support ...
Create and stick to a structure for the project and write-up. Presentation and flow of ideas play a bit part in the impression you make and the points you will get. Use only reliable, academically relevant sources. Make use of primary sources wherever possible, because this gives your project credibility.
The complete guide to High School Capstone Projects! This comprehensive guide explores the purpose, benefits, and implementation of capstone projects, from ideation to presentation. Discover how capstones foster holistic learning, skill development, and real-world application. Get insights, tips, and success stories for creating impactful capstone experiences.
STEM capstone topics are typically broad and interdisciplinary, and they allow students to apply the knowledge and skills they have learned throughout their STEM education to solve a real-world problem. Some examples of capstone topics for STEM students include: Developing a new way to generate renewable energy.
Think of your academic journey as a thrilling mountain climb. The capstone project marks the exhilarating, and sometimes daunting, summit. This culminating assignment is a staple in many degree programs, providing students with a unique opportunity to synthesize their learning, apply their skills to real-world challenges, and showcase their readiness for the professional world.
15 10 Political Science Capstone Project Ideas. 16 10 Best Capstone Project Ideas in Economics. 17 10 Sociology Capstone Project Ideas. 18 Capstone Writing: 10 Essential Steps. The long path of research works ahead, and you can't find any capstone project ideas that would be interesting and innovative. The task can seem even more challenging ...
Capstone projects vary not just in the type of project, also in the level at which they are done. There are projects for juniors and seniors in college as well as for postgraduate students. Here are some examples of the forms of projects depending on the academic level. In-depth research projects. Developing the concept of a product, tool, or ...
By definition, a capstone project outline is a structured plan or blueprint that lays out the framework for the entire capstone project. It serves as a guide, helping students organize their thoughts, plan their approach, and ensure that their project meets the required academic standards. The outline generally includes key components such as ...
A capstone project is a multifaceted academic experience typically required for students during the final year of an academic program. It is a comprehensive and interdisciplinary project that often requires students to apply the knowledge and skills acquired throughout their academic careers to solve real-world problems or issues.
The capstone project is a unique opportunity to carry out independent group research in order to devise an innovative solution for a real-world problem. While a project of this scope and scale can be challenging, it can also be very rewarding. The capstone project is usually the final assignment and plays a vital role in preparing students for ...
A high school capstone project is a way for students to demonstrate the culmination of skills and knowledge gained through their academic career by completing a long-term, multi-faceted project. Typically performed at the end of a student's high school career, students commonly choose a topic, profession, or social problem to explore and work ...
No matter what you call it, a capstone project: Is something you complete as an undergrad, usually in your senior year; Will allow you to deeply engage with a topic and showcase your subject knowledge; Is in partnership with instructors; Is a blend of in-depth research, reflection, and will evolve over many drafts; Can be 15 to 50+ pages in length and take months to complete
A capstone project is a comprehensive, culminating academic endeavor undertaken by students typically in their final year of study. It synthesizes their learning experiences, requiring students to apply the knowledge, skills, and competencies gained throughout their academic journey. A capstone project aims to address a real-world problem or ...
Here's an example of a capstone project that is run through an extracurricular organization but still requires enormous self-motivation: the Eagle Scout Service Project. It takes years to become an Eagle Scout. Your son must earn badges, go on camping trips or summer excursions, become competent in the outdoors and in service, etc. Then, in ...
Microsoft Word - McLaughlin_Dept Format_1kc_3 (002).docx. This capstone paper is posted as an example of the type of work and writing that meets the capstone individual research project final paper requirement for the NRES non-thesis M.S. option. This should not be used as a guide for formatting.
Choosing a great capstone project topic involves a balance between personal interest, academic relevance, and real-world applicability. Choose a capstone topic aligned with your personal interests and passions within your field. Identify and address current challenges or gaps in your field for a relevant and impactful project.
Capstone Project Examples. The Capstone project is designed to be the BIS program's culminating experience where students meld three disciplines into a coherent, integrated whole to demonstrate academic understanding and application.
This page offers a general guide to MBA capstone and thesis projects. Below, find an overview of the key differences between the two types of projects, typical steps to research and writing, capstone project examples, and answers to common questions -- all accompanied by expert advice from an MBA faculty member.
Capstone projects allow students and sponsors to engage closely over a period of time, typically with a dedicated supervisor, but also with stakeholders across the organisation with an interest in the brief. Encourage students and sponsors to actively build a relationship and stay connected after the project. Sponsors might have recruitment ...
For more than a decade, the fellows have used the A3 problem-solving tool to guide their capstone project definition, planning, and execution. It has proven to be an extremely valuable tool worth consideration by all organizations with problems to solve. ... An example of a problem statement with this pitfall: First-line managers need to better ...
When civil engineering students met to choose their senior capstone design projects, they all wanted to work with The Village at Glencliff (TVG), a respite community of 12 tiny homes for some of Nashville's most medically vulnerable homeless citizens that provides a safe place to recover after a hospitalization. So, they created three projects for […]
• All students must complete an MPH Capstone Project (xxx.800), along with course 260.710 or 260.720. • Students are required to complete 550.860 Academic and Research Ethics at BSPH during their first term of
Examples of "evidence-based workforce development strategies and methodologies that may be considered for this program" include registered apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs, colleges ...
The White House reaction: Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said Friday's decision was the latest example of the Supreme Court siding with Republican-backed special interests ...