Technology: Putting the Pieces Together, Technology Planning Strategies
11/17/97 videoconference, Kirkwood Community College
http://www.kirkwood.cc.ia.us/futuretracks/
videotape and handouts available from MCLI (731-8300)

Review
by Alan Levine

The panel members represented community college technology initiatives from Montgomery County Community College (Pennsylvania), Kirkwood Community College (Iowa), and Northwestern Michigan College.

Overall, there is nothing dramatically new about the technology planning process. All panel members discussed it in terms of setting the vision, assembling the players, doing "environmental scanning", internal analysis of existing resources, and implementation/evaluation feedback loops. There are some good resources in the handouts and the above web site is intended to be as a pre- and post- workshop discussion area.

Each presenter provided a short video over view of some of their respective technology efforts.

Several solicited outside entities for funding,through grants and creative partnerships.

Kirkwood described their "Carpe Diem" approach which means that they aim to move quick on technology planning, that they see it as difficult to plans 3-5 year static plans. Their bullet points:

• culture that encourages risk-taking
• clear mission statement
• open lines of communication
• accurate, timely communication
• dynamic planning
  • recognize a need
  • figure out why the need exists
  • determine strategies for remedy
  • look to resources (existing_ human first, then technical
  • commit to goals. establish timelines

Montgomery described a major issues as $. They adopted a $3 per credit technology use fee, which still was not enough. They have an Academic planning group, with reps from instructional divisions. The approach is to have each division do its own planning, "providing ownership" of plans but resulting in some plans that are "spotty". They make recommendations to a college-wide Academic computing committee with 2 reps from each academic division, 2 reps from academic support, 3 reps from computing support, and 2 administrators. Their process includes core "common components" that need to be in every plan. They rely on surveys and focus groups to assess tech needs of the community, employ community/business advisory panels. The academic computing committee revisits the vision on a yearly basis. They make policies and recommendations such as:

• standardization of equipment
• software recommendations (e.g. . migrate from Office 95 to 97)
• distribution of computers to faculty and labs
• teacher training/support
• delivery of computer-aided instruction in the classroom (including furniture)
• paying for technology

Northwestern Michigan developed in 2 years electronic linkages of colleges and universities to offer such specialized programs as the Michigan Virtual Automotive College (http://www.mvac.org/). They relied on "RFI"'s to vendors (Request for Information) in which vendors provided suggested technological solutions for instructional issues. A key component was a "compelling vision" and knowing that "today's investments are not final". "Prepare (training) well before the technology arrives" and solicit a lot of input from the private sector.

Another panelist, a consultant, presented an overview of SPI Planing Process (Scan, PLan, Implement), which is nothing revolutionary, but the handouts provide some useful work sheets and examples.