What is Technology Use Planning?
The National Educational Technology Plan 2010 established goals, challenges, and procedures for effective technology use planning. The five goals recommended in this plan include learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity. Considering this, I would describe Technology Use Planning (TUP) as a blueprint to facilitate technology resources and opportunities to meet the educational goals and vision of an institution. According to the Guidebook for Developing an Effective Instructional Technology Plan (Al-Weshail et al., 1996), technology planning is a five phase process by which institutions recruit and organize a planning team representing all stakeholders; research and identify the needs of the individuals and organizations within the institution; define the goals and tasks needed to fulfill the vision and mission; formalize the plan in writing; and continually implement evaluate, and revise. The National Education Technology Plan of 2010 speaks of transforming American education by designing effective, efficient, and flexible processes through collaboration from states, districts, the federal government, and other stakeholders. It also parallels one of the five TUP planning phases by stating efforts need to be continually monitored and measured. In addition, it states we need to hold ourselves accountable for progress and results every step in the planning process. “The purpose of the plan is not just to produce a document, but to produce continuous action that creates and maintains a technology-rich educational environment” (Al-Weshail et al., 1996 p. 9).
I have to say I agreed with most of what John See, Technology Integration Specialist for the Minnesota Department of Education, said about developing effective technology plans. He stated technology plans should be based on applications rather than technology. I would question whether it is realistic to consider one without the other. Technology should be applied toward clearly desired outcomes as stated in the National Education Technology Plan of 2010. I would also have to partly agree a five year plan is too long based on his reasoning of ever-changing technology (See, 1992). However, a technology plan must fit into the master plan and align with the vision of an institution. Mr. See’s perspective may be a bit limited. An institution’s master plan should span many years and be structured to allow for many more variables than just technology. There should be short term initiatives that fit into long term plans. What Mr. See did not mention was outside influences that play a part in a technology plan. College partnerships, political influences, and the availability of funding such as grants also impact technology use planning. There also needs to be flexibility due to budget, staffing, and facilities decisions yet to be made. For instance the president of a college or a school district superintendent may have lucrative lunch with Steve Jobs or Michael Dell one afternoon. That statement was meant to be humorous, but it happens more often than most of us know about.
I have not been involved in TUP for education, but I have been directly involved in many facets of TUP for a few businesses and a government organization. I have found a sound systems approach that engages all relevant stakeholders usually pays dividends. I would guess TUP for education is more time consuming and difficult because of the larger collaborative effort oftentimes resulting in compromise. In business, you do not have to always ask everyone for their opinion even if it is the smartest practice. Sometimes, businesses consider the initial bottom line to be more important. Time is money. In contrast, education is not designed around making money. It is designed around providing the service of education. In addition, it has been my observation educational institutions don’t always give enough consideration to the cost of implementation. The question of whether an institution will or will not fund something may be more important than how much something costs. I can only assume it has something to do with not having to consider a profit margin.
I have seen many successes in technology planning, but the failures always appear to be the most memorable. Without getting into specifics, I can recall a time when an organization was actively researching for a Company Management System (CMS). The planning team was made up of upper management representatives from all areas of the business. The team made a recommendation and the decision makers acted on that recommendation by purchasing the CMS. Unfortunately, that commitment resulted in years of unanticipated man-hours spent by business analysts and software developers converting the antiquated systems over to new CMS. None of the analysts or software developers were involved in the decision to purchase the CMS. I can also recall a manufacturing company who designed the majority of their electronics around free, but proprietary communication software. The software became outdated and later unsupported causing a customer support nightmare and resulting in a catastrophic retooling and financial burden.
After my past experiences and what I have learned from researching TUP, I would want to be involved in the TUP for my college only if I had a stake in the process. If I were one of the planning leaders, I would focus more on involving the right people than I would on the decisions themselves. I would also want to be aware all of the investments both on the front end and the back end before implementing or making a commitment. The costs of support and maintenance may not be revealed until it is too late. The most important thing to be aware of in TUP is the intended purpose and potential outcomes.
References
Al-Weshail, A. S., Baxter A. L., Cherry, W., Hill, E. W., Jones, C. R., Love, L. T., . . . Woods, J. C. (1996). Guidebook for developing an effective instructional technology plan. Retrieved from http://www.nctp.com/downloads/guidebook.pdf.
See, J. (1992). Developing effective technology plans. National Center for Technology Planning. Retrieved from http://www.nctp.com/html/john_see.cfm.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). National Educational Technology Plan, 2010: Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/NETP-2010-exec-summary.pdf
Dr. Matt Goff: e-Portfolio 