Comments on: Technology Planning http://staff.bbhcsd.org/schinkerj/archives/2008/12/02/technology-planning/ Your Daily Dose of Digital Delicacies Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:36:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Chad http://staff.bbhcsd.org/schinkerj/archives/2008/12/02/technology-planning/#comment-249 Chad Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:24:33 +0000 http://staff.bbhcsd.org/schinkerj/?p=614#comment-249 I would content that the plan is not for people that know the technology or the way it will be use now or in the future. These plans are designed to build the case for the people who are clueless about what we are up to with these sometimes expensive tools. The questions your system asks of you are based on diffusion of innovation theory (i.e. highly recommended reading if for anyone interested in leadership within the field of instructional technology) and will greatly help these people to build your case. You do bring up an important point that I share with you when it comes to burdensome timelines before we can go to deployment. When we make strategic investments in enterprise technologies (i.e. large scale and very expensive) it will require people to invest substantial time in the technology planning process. However, when we are talking about local and relatively small projects it should not take more than 10min. for and IT person to whip out a credit card and make this happen for you or a group of people interested in making the same change to their curriculum. Action also might include the need to start a team of people who can quickly and efficiently understand the need, find/build a solution(s), and then train everyone so that we can deploy the resource the next day, if we are comfortable with that fast a pace. My thinking as an administrator of these projects is much like an investment portfolio where I am responsible for taking some risks and have some nice sold investments in these tools that will help our students learn. It also means that we do it with an eye on returns on that investment (there will always be some documentation needed) so that we can conntinue to learn what the gains (or not) are from adopting these innovations. Your concern about the “round peg in a square hole” is also seen in my end of the business. When we are trying to find ways to help people address problems we might sound a bit like a zellot who only sees and hears their cause (i.e. selling the use of technology A, B or C) and not what the true needs are. Just like the investment broker who hears that you want “conservative investments” and sells you a blue chip and not a bond it takes frank and clear dialogue on the true needs you have for learning so that we can find a tool that really works for your needs. I will often ask my faculty to tell me their vision for what they would see as the ideal outcome before we move on to “tech talk.” I have avoided many misinterpretations and found that we are able to deliver much quicker results. Regardless, and I cannot stress this point enough, it WILL take some conversations to flush out all of the true needs and find a solution that everyone likes. I would content that the plan is not for people that know the technology or the way it will be use now or in the future. These plans are designed to build the case for the people who are clueless about what we are up to with these sometimes expensive tools. The questions your system asks of you are based on diffusion of innovation theory (i.e. highly recommended reading if for anyone interested in leadership within the field of instructional technology) and will greatly help these people to build your case.
You do bring up an important point that I share with you when it comes to burdensome timelines before we can go to deployment. When we make strategic investments in enterprise technologies (i.e. large scale and very expensive) it will require people to invest substantial time in the technology planning process. However, when we are talking about local and relatively small projects it should not take more than 10min. for and IT person to whip out a credit card and make this happen for you or a group of people interested in making the same change to their curriculum. Action also might include the need to start a team of people who can quickly and efficiently understand the need, find/build a solution(s), and then train everyone so that we can deploy the resource the next day, if we are comfortable with that fast a pace. My thinking as an administrator of these projects is much like an investment portfolio where I am responsible for taking some risks and have some nice sold investments in these tools that will help our students learn. It also means that we do it with an eye on returns on that investment (there will always be some documentation needed) so that we can conntinue to learn what the gains (or not) are from adopting these innovations.
Your concern about the “round peg in a square hole” is also seen in my end of the business. When we are trying to find ways to help people address problems we might sound a bit like a zellot who only sees and hears their cause (i.e. selling the use of technology A, B or C) and not what the true needs are. Just like the investment broker who hears that you want “conservative investments” and sells you a blue chip and not a bond it takes frank and clear dialogue on the true needs you have for learning so that we can find a tool that really works for your needs. I will often ask my faculty to tell me their vision for what they would see as the ideal outcome before we move on to “tech talk.” I have avoided many misinterpretations and found that we are able to deliver much quicker results. Regardless, and I cannot stress this point enough, it WILL take some conversations to flush out all of the true needs and find a solution that everyone likes.

]]> By: Troy http://staff.bbhcsd.org/schinkerj/archives/2008/12/02/technology-planning/#comment-231 Troy Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:48:27 +0000 http://staff.bbhcsd.org/schinkerj/?p=614#comment-231 A technology plan will always be flawed because you never know when something will jump the next curve. Troy A technology plan will always be flawed because you never know when something will jump the next curve.

Troy

]]> By: Debbie http://staff.bbhcsd.org/schinkerj/archives/2008/12/02/technology-planning/#comment-233 Debbie Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:09:32 +0000 http://staff.bbhcsd.org/schinkerj/?p=614#comment-233 This article speaks a bit more to the "automation phase" phenomenon and suggests using technology instead for "disruptive innovation." Some good food for thought: http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/18575969.html This article speaks a bit more to the “automation phase” phenomenon and suggests using technology instead for “disruptive innovation.” Some good food for thought: http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/18575969.html

]]> By: Nitin Julka http://staff.bbhcsd.org/schinkerj/archives/2008/12/02/technology-planning/#comment-232 Nitin Julka Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:21:02 +0000 http://staff.bbhcsd.org/schinkerj/?p=614#comment-232 John This is a fascinating post. I agree that the eTech Ohio technology planning tool is burdensome and more of a "compliance" document than a way of helping technology planning. But I would not dismiss having a solid technology plan. My recommendation: try using your own frameworks and models to do technology planning for the school. Off the top of my head, I would want a technology plan to include: Core IT Strategy (Security; Infrastructure; Servers; Customer Service; Work Orders; Refresh; Standard images; etc.) Platform (Thin clients? 1:1 lap tops? some mix?) Automation for business processes/back office Instructional Technologies Technology Integration in Classroom (including Course Management Solutions, etc.) Web 2.0 and Personal Learning Networks Prof Development Then, budget this out with a plan and unifying vision for the next 3-5 years, And then treat the eTech Ohio technology planning tool as a compliance document and assign someone to "copy and paste" from your actual planning document. And of course, find a strong Education Technology Partner to help execute on your school's vision. :) -Nitin Julka njulka@smartsolutionsonline.com John

This is a fascinating post.

I agree that the eTech Ohio technology planning tool is burdensome and more of a “compliance” document than a way of helping technology planning. But I would not dismiss having a solid technology plan.

My recommendation: try using your own frameworks and models to do technology planning for the school.

Off the top of my head, I would want a technology plan to include:
Core IT Strategy (Security; Infrastructure; Servers; Customer Service; Work Orders; Refresh; Standard images; etc.)
Platform (Thin clients? 1:1 lap tops? some mix?)
Automation for business processes/back office
Instructional Technologies
Technology Integration in Classroom (including Course Management Solutions, etc.)
Web 2.0 and Personal Learning Networks
Prof Development

Then, budget this out with a plan and unifying vision for the next 3-5 years,

And then treat the eTech Ohio technology planning tool as a compliance document and assign someone to “copy and paste” from your actual planning document.

And of course, find a strong Education Technology Partner to help execute on your school’s vision. :)
-Nitin Julka
njulka@smartsolutionsonline.com

]]>