steps in order to expedite the implementation of the IS Plan

You were invited by the university president to prepare an IS plan for the university, discuss what are the steps in order to expedite the implementation of the IS Plan. (at least 5000 words)

An Implementation Plan is a detailed project management tool for a specific policy measure or package of measures, designed to assist agencies to manage and monitor implementation effectively. These are intended to be scalable and flexible, reflecting the degree of urgency, innovation, complexity and/or sensitivity associated with the particular policy measure. Agencies are expected to exercise judgment in this area; however, the level of detail should be sufficient to enable the agency to effectively manage the implementation of a policy measure.
Implementation plans should be:
• succinct, but not to the point that important information is buried
• jargon free – they should be capable of being understood by everyone using them
• based on a sound programme logic, presenting a clear line of sight from the original proposal and the government’s expectations, to the inputs and how they will contribute to the achievement of those expectations; the outputs to be delivered; why and how those outputs are expected to deliver the outcomes sought, and the assumptions made about those links; and how this delivery chain and its supporting assumptions will be evaluated
• clear on timeframes and project phases, especially where there are interdependencies with other programmes or measures or critical requirements such as the passage of legislation or negotiations with the States and Territories
• clear on the decision pathways forward – often both the objectives and the means to achieving those objectives are uncertain. Implementation plans need to recognise the unknowns as well as the known’s, and explain how and when the unknowns will be addressed.

We all know that planning is a critical phase in the adoption of technology initiatives that affect not just the students and the teachers but also an entire community (wikibook Technology Planning: the educator's guide - Implementation plan and timeline, 2008). November, Staudt, Costello, and Lynne (1996) contended that an effective technology plan is based on the shared vision of educators, parents, community members, and business leaders who have technological expertise. They also suggested that in order for a technology plan to be successful, it must promote meaningful learning and collaboration, provide for the needed professional development and support, and respond flexibly to change. According to Whitehead, Jensen, and Boschee (2003), most school administrators know that computers and advanced-information technologies are touching the lives of students at school and at home. They suggested the following important factors that must be addressed in a technology plan.


Guiding Questions for Implementation Plan
How Will You Use Technology to Support Yo u r Vision of Learning?
Technology lends itself well to learning and instruction (Massachusetts Software Council, 1994) because it is a powerful tool that, when properly implemented, improves student learning and achievement. However, teachers have little incentive to tackle the technical and scheduling problems associated with technology unless they have a clear idea of how it can improve teaching and learning (Means, Blando, Olson, Middleton, Morocco, Remz, & Zorfass, 1993). Exactly which educational goals a technology plan should address and attempt to accomplish must be determined before the technology plan is implemented (Holmes & Rawitsch, 1993). Technology should not drive educational decisions or learning. Rather, decision making should be based on the learning and teaching needs of the student. Technology cannot prescribe for a teacher which students should use the technology, how often it should be used, or how to integrate technology into existing instructional practices. Unless teachers start out with specific technology goals that support their vision of learning, technology will most likely be used to reinforce the status quo (Cohen, 1988; Cuban, 1986). There is evidence that when learning and technology goals are not decided upon before technology implementation, technology can become a drain on resources and add to the burdens of teachers who are already trying to do too much (Piele, 1989). This problem can be avoided by formulating a vision for learning that connects to educational goals, values, and objectives for technology use. Once the stakeholders involved understand the vision and see how technology will make their lives better, they are likely to become more open to technology planning and implementation. The following questions should be addressed when planning how to use technology to support a vision of learning.

• How will technology be used to provide and support a challenging curriculum through engaging instructional practices (e.g., collaborative learning, problem-based learning, problem solving, critical thinking, constructivist classrooms, project-based learning, and so on)?
Consider:
 Learning tasks that are authentic, challenging, and multidisciplinary
 Assessments that are performance-based, generative, seamless and ongoing, and equitable.
 Instructional models that are interactive and generative
 Learning contexts that are collaborative, knowledge building, and Empathetic.
 Grouping strategies that are flexible, equitable, and heterogeneous
 Teacher roles as facilitators, guides, colearners, and coinvestigators
 Student roles as explorers, cognitive apprentices, teachers, and producers

• What educational technology skills will be a part of your curriculum and how will teaching them to students and staff enhance and support your broader instructional goals?
• How will technology be used to support an articulated prekindergarten to adult learning program for all students?
• How will technology be used to support changes in the roles and responsibilities of students, teachers, administrators, parents, community members, and others in order to achieve your vision?
• How will technology be used to support organizational and governance structures that are consistent with your vision of learning?
• How will technology be used to support and provide meaningful professional development experiences for staff?
• How will technology be used to support your school’s accountability and assessment system?
• How will technology be used to support positive home-school-community collaborations?
• How will technology be used to support the provision of comprehensive services (e.g., school-based, school-linked health and social services)?
•
Developing a Supportive Infrastructure
The infrastructure consists of two parts: human resources—which deals with professional learning and support—and technology—which deals with hardware, software, and facilities. With technological change occurring at a rapid pace, purchasers of new technology sometimes feel hard pressed to keep up (Fine, 1991). School districts, due to limited budgets and technical expertise, have a difficult time choosing and buying technology. Often they lack adequate information about the newest technologies and how to use them; or they do not take into account the level of training and staff development needed to use the technology. The key to technology planning is to make informed decisions. Without good information about the nuts and bolts of technology (i.e., the hardware and software) planners are at a disadvantage. The best way to overcome this problem is to take a broad view of technology and educate planners and staff about current and emerging technologies and their benefits and then realize that implementing technology is not a one-time thing but an ongoing and continuous process that requires a supportive infrastructure that is flexible enough to deal with the rapid pace of technological change. The following questions should be addressed when planning for a supportive infrastructure:

Professional Development,Training,Technical Support
• How will you find out what skills your staff and students currently have and what skills they will need to fulfill your plan’s objectives?
• How will you design and implement a professional development and training strategy that meets the needs of your staff?
• How will you use technology to provide professional development, training, and ongoing technical support, and to support teachers as they integrate technology into the curriculum?
• Who will be responsible for ensuring and coordinating professional development?
• Who will be responsible for providing technical assistance and support?
• How will you build technical support capacity within your staff so that equipment will be maintained and kept reliable?
• What are your contingencies for providing just-in-time services when the technology breaks down?

Networking, Hardware, Software, Facilities
• What level of networking will be required to support your vision of learning?
• What hardware specifications are needed to support your vision of learning?
• How will you deal with obsolescence, maintenance, and amortization?
• How will you make use of existing technology?
• What software is required to support your vision of learning?
• How will software be reviewed and purchased?
• What building facilities exist or are needed, and what modifications must be made to support your vision of learning?
• How will you implement, maintain, and sustain the equipment, software, and the network for extended periods, and who will be responsible?

Garnering Public Support
Public support is essential to ensure the success and longevity of planning implementation. The following questions should be addressed when developing strategies to garner public support:

• What kinds and levels of public support are necessary to make the implementation of your technology plan successful and sustainable?
• What public relations activities will you engage in to promote the effective long-term implementation of your technology plan?
• How will you create opportunities for school staff and the community to share information in order to foster positive relationships?
• How will you garner support from community and business leadership, for example, in long-term public and private partnerships?
• How will you connect and interact with related organizations (museums, libraries, adult literacy programs, higher education, community-based organizations, and so on) to improve student learning?
• How will you leverage investments (e.g., provide training and support for parents and community members) to provide technology access and service to the wider community?
• What other human and community resources exist, including businesses and libraries, to support the plan?
• What funding policies and opportunities exist for implementing your plan?
• How and when will you report results to stakeholders?

Implementing Your Plan
Many planners believe their job is complete after a plan is written, but in actuality it has only begun. Awritten technology plan has direction and long-term technology goals. However, for each new technology introduced to an organization, there will be stages of implementation that include resource development (budget), evaluation, selection, installation, training, pilot projects, mini-implementations, and, finally, full implementation. These stages should all be reflected in a technology plan. It is also important to remember not to judge technology as ineffective when it is not implemented according to the plan (Holmes & Rawitsch, 1993). Flexibility, patience, and adaptability are essential for any kind of change process and certainly for implementing technology. The following questions should be addressed when planning the implementation of your plan:

• What is the timeline for meeting the goals of your plan?
• Who is responsible for achieving milestones on the timelines?
• What professional development strategies will you use?
• How will you provide time for ongoing staff development, including time to practice and learn new technologies?
• What is your plan for networking, acquiring hardware and software, and updating the facility?
• How will you deal with the rapid changes in technology?
• What funding is available currently?
• How will funding be provided over the life of the plan?
• How will you coordinate and leverage a variety of funding resources to support your plan?
• How will you deal with contingencies such as changes in leadership and changes in budget?
• How will you determine which program area, discipline, or staff will receive highest priorities for receiving technologies?
• Who (or what group) will be responsible for implementing the t e c h n o l o g y plan?
• What incentives and sanctions will you implement to ensure that everyone achieves a high level of technological proficiency?
• How will you ensure equity of access to technology and engaged learning experiences for all students?
• How will your instructional use of technology address district, state, and federal mandates including curriculum, special needs, minority populations, and equity issues?
• What new policies are needed to support implementation of your plan?

Evaluating the Implementation of Your Technology Plan
Technology implementation is a continuous process that adapts to the organization’s changing circumstances and includes ongoing evaluation. Effective evaluation will force planners to rethink and adapt objectives, priorities, and strategies as implementation proceeds. Continuous evaluation also facilitates making changes if aspects of the plan are not working. Evaluating the implementation of a technology plan can be conducted by various means. Simple observations, both negative and positive, that have been made by students and teachers using the technology are the most helpful. Interviews and informal meetings with both instructors and students can draw out the lessons that both groups have learned from using the technology. A simple written survey can assist in measuring the extent to which the plan has met its original objectives and expected outcomes. The following questions should be addressed when planning the evaluation of the implementation of your technology plan:

• How and when will you evaluate the impact your technology plan implementation has on student performance?
• Who will be responsible for collecting ongoing data to assess the effectiveness of the plan and its implementation?
• What windows of opportunity exist for reviewing the technology plan? (For example, the plan might be reviewed during curriculum review cycles.)
• How will accountability for implementation be assessed?
• How will you assess the level of technological proficiency gained by students, teachers, and staff?
• How will you use technology to evaluate teaching and learning?
• nWhat is the key indicator of success for each component of the plan?
• How will you analyze the effectiveness of disbursement decisions in light of implementation priorities?
• How will you analyze implementation decisions to accommodate for changes as a result of new information and technologies?
• What organizational mechanism will you create that allows changes in the implementation of the technology plan and in the plan itself?

Factors to consider
According to the OECD (2000)it is necessary to have coherent and comprehensive policies for planning and evaluation. They suggested to include the definition of clear objectives, the identification of priorities and strategies, the ability to envisage future scenarios, the design, implementation and evaluation of pilot projects. In addition, they recommended that planning must be rigorous but not inflexible, allowing refinement in the light of experience.
According to November, Staudt, Costello, and Lynne (1996), the first step in developing a technology plan is convening a 'planning committee' or team to review the school improvement plan already in place and research the district needs. They also suggested that an effective team enlists educators but also takes advantage of the expertise of community members and the input of parents and students. They proposed that the planning team becomes responsible for the development of an overall technology plan. Further, they concluded that the team members are responsible for developing a vision for the plan, determine the goals that must be met to reach it, and create steps to implement those goals.
Whitehead, Jensen, and Boschee (2003) stated that planning addresses the who, what, when, where, why, and how aspects of the project. In addition, they assured that quality leadership must prevail at all times. Furthermore, they recommended technology coordinators to envision what the completed project will look like and what it will do for teaching and learning. This underlying mental picture is necessary to provide focus for the entire enterprise. Furthermore, they also advise administrators to consider the possibility of having to modify school practices or even upgrade regulations. This may even result in an adjustment of the school's philosophy and mission statements (wikibook Technology Planning: the educator's guide - Vision, 2008) to align with the technology initiative being proposed. If necessary, the use of surveys allows administrators to probe stakeholder viewpoints. In addition, they emphasized that every person involved must know both sides of the issue. They suggested the use of research that both supports and counters the major assumptions on which the technology project is based. Furthermore, they advised administrators to consider how students and staff members would be affected by the technology changes and develop appropriate support structures like training, changes in classroom layout, inclusion into curricula, and revision of school programs.
According to the U.S. Department of Education (2004), for public education to benefit from the rapidly evolving development of information and communication technology, leaders at every level - school, district and state - must not only supervise, but provide informed, creative and ultimately transformative leadership for systemic change. They recommend districts to invest in leadership development programs to develop a new generation of tech-savvy leaders at every level. Further, they suggested to retool administrator education programs to provide training in technology decision making and organizational change. They also recommended districts to develop partnerships between schools and higher education institutions, in addition to encouraging creative technology partnerships with the business community.
Community Awareness and Support
According to Whitehead, Jensen, & Boschee (2003), community support is necessary during the planning stages of a technology initiative. They contended that neither parents nor community members are likely to be idle bystanders when costly reforms are about to change the way significant portions of children's education are delivered. For this reason, they suggested the schools and districts to evaluate community willingness to fund such initiatives in schools. Further, they proposed to show community members how teachers will adopt technology in the classroom and how it would enhance student learning and achievement. They also advised the institutions to develop guidelines for presenting information to the public under the supervision of a public relations director.
According to the OECD (2000), social participation is essential for the successful development of ICT initiatives in education, the active involvement of the private sector and the local communities being critical. They also stated that much effort has to be expended in strategies that enable communities to take advantage of the new technologies, so that local populations become fully acquainted with their potential.
Student Needs
November, Staudt, Costello, and Lynne (1996) suggested team members to generate a collective vision which supports meaningful engaged learning for all students.
Whitehead, Jensen, and Boschee (2003) suggested that in any technology initiative, the needs of the students must be placed above any other factor being considered. It is very common to see cases in which administrators and committee members make decisions about technology that really don't acknowledge the needs of the people who will use it.
According to the U.S. Department of Education (2004), there has been significant growth in organized online instruction (e-learning) and "virtual" schools, making it possible for students at all levels to receive high quality supplemental or full courses of instruction personalized to their needs. They also stated that traditional schools are turning to these services to expand opportunities and choices for students and professional development for teachers.
Teaching and Learning
According to Whitehead, Jensen, and Boschee (2003), teaching and learning must be considered simultaneously when deciding how technology will be brought into the classroom. They suggested to have a 'purpose' that reflects teaching and learning when bringing technologies into the school. In addition, they recommended to evaluate hardware purchases and coordinate them to student needs. Hence, features like user-friendliness, dependability and speed need to be taken into account. With respect to software, they advise technology coordinators to carefully determine which programs will best complement, support, and expand classroom teaching and learning. It is important to flatten the learning curve by using user-friendly applications to help ensure that programs will be used by teachers and students. With respect to the teachers, they recommended that dialogues need to be established to evaluate classroom space and decide on computer locations. In addition, they requested technology coordinators to determine the amount of use teachers make of the new technology.
November, Staudt, Costello, and Lynne (1996) recommended the technology planning team to encourage teachers to seek opportunities to work in teams in order to design technology-supported projects. They also suggested the team to develop objectives that describe appropriate technology goals for students at each grade level. They contended that instead of emphasizing higher order thinking skills, complex problem solving, and cognitive research, sometimes the technology may be used to teach merely the same old curriculum. They believe that using technology effectively in education requires shifting the focus from teaching to active learning. Further, they suggested teachers to develop proficiency in technology through not only in-service professional development activities but also through collegial support.
According to the U.S. Department of Education (2004), a perennial problem for schools, teachers and students is that textbooks are increasingly expensive, quickly outdated and physically cumbersome. They suggested that a move from reliance on textbooks to the use of multimedia or online information (digital content) offers many advantages, including cost savings, increased efficiency, improved accessibility, and enhancing learning opportunities in a format that engages today's web-savvy students. For this reason, they encouraged ubiquitous access to computers and connectivity for school children. They also requested to consider the cost and benefits of online content, aligned with rigorous state academic standards, as part of a systemic approach to creating resources for students to customize learning to their individual needs.
Staff Development
Whitehead, Jensen, & Boschee (2003) considered staff development to be one of the most important aspects of the initiative. In order to succeed in staff development efforts, they also suggested administrators to formulate detailed plans for staff development and implementation which should be developed well in advance of the actual implementation of technology in the classrooms. They recommended the appointment of the person in charge of leading staff development programs as well as evaluating each stage of the implementation based on a detailed working schedule. They emphasized the importance of pertinent staff development activities as well as in-house technical consultants who would help teachers promptly.
November, Staudt, Costello, and Lynne (1996) suggested that staff development activities should help teachers become comfortable and proficient with the technology and give them the opportunity to devise ways to use it in their classrooms. They also contended that the uniqueness of each teacher and class must be acknowledged and used to build specific teaching strategies to meet the goals outlined in the technology plan.
According to the U.S. Department of Education (2004), every teacher should have the opportunity to take online learning courses. In addition, they suggested that institutions ought to ensure that every teacher knows how to use data to personalize instruction. This is marked by the ability to interpret data to understand student progress and challenges, drive daily decisions and design instructional interventions to customize instruction for every student's unique needs.
Financial Management
is important to understand that most determinations about finance are generally dealt by the people in top management positions. Nonetheless, the impact of these decisions are critical to the success of the project. Whitehead, Jensen, & Boschee (2003) contended that it was important to determine the financial resources for in-house projects and equipment. They also suggested to itemize equipment resources owned by the school or district with the idea of reducing unnecessary duplication in new purchases. Further, they recommended the institution to appoint someone who will be responsible for handling the recommended purchases locally or from a national distribution company. They suggested that a thorough review of all costs needs to be made to ensure the technology project is affordable in all of its phases. Finally, they suggested the canvassing of civic organizations for financial or equipment support.
According to November, Staudt, Costello, and Lynne (1996), technology is changing so quickly that it is impossible to know what advances will be available in five years. They proposed that plans ought to be reviewed each year during the budget process to make sure the district is purchasing the most current equipment or to take advantage of new and lower cost technology. They also proposed the development of strategies to meet the funding challenge which also included the investigation of federal, state, and other grant opportunities and funding sources for educational technology.
According to the U.S. Department of Education (2004), educational institutions ought to consider a systemic restructuring of budgets to realize efficiencies, cost savings and reallocation. This can include reallocations in expenditures on textbooks, instructional supplies, space and computer labs. In addition, they recommended to consider leasing with 3-5 year refresh cycles. Finally, they proposed the creation of a technology innovation fund to carry funds over yearly budget cycles.
Infrastructure
Whitehead, Jensen, & Boschee (2003) related infrastructure to the basic facilities and the mechanical and electrical installations found in a school. They contended that it is important to decide how existing equipment and infrastructure can be integrated into the project. They suggested that network wiring needs to accommodate the instructional configuration required by teachers. Further, they recommend getting assistance from professionals to handle remodeling or other infrastructure necessities. People with greater experience can provide a better insight on the space and remodeling required to ready the infrastructure for implementation. Finally, they suggested technology coordinators to visit other schools to evaluate successful programs for structural adaptations that could be taken into account using unique ideas to solve local problems.
According to OECD (2000), it is essential to have a sound and adequate telecommunication and computer network infrastructure that can support and deliver diverse educational models.
Evaluation and Assessment
Whitehead, Jensen, & Boschee (2003) concluded that the work of leaders is not done when computers or other learning technologies are networked in schools and classrooms. Contrary to what is a common belief, they contended that a very important part of the work remains in the form of program evaluation and assessment. For this reason, they recommended the appointment of someone who would evaluate the overall project following a plan with dates. In addition, they suggested that an outline be presented of how changes or revisions will be handled. In order to succeed, they advised reviewers to use the most appropriate evaluation and assessment methods available for sharing information with the community. According to November, Staudt, Costello, and Lynne (1996), educators, parents, and community members are more likely to support technology if they are able to see proof of its value in helping students learn. They also contended that it is important to review and update the technology plan at least once a year to provide evaluation of its usefulness.
According to the U.S. Department of Education (2004), integrated, interoperable data systems are the key to better allocation of resources, greater management efficiency, and online and technology-based assessments of student performance that empower educators to transform teaching and personalize instruction. They also recommended the use of data from both administrative and instructional systems to understand relationships between decisions, allocation of resources and student achievement. Finally, they suggested to use assessment results to inform and differentiate instruction for every child.

Conclusions
Administrative involvement and leadership are crucial to the technology planning and implementation process. If organizational leaders do not understand and support the technology plan, it will be difficult to implement and can be either intentionally or inadvertently sabotaged. Many people perceive that without a technology champion or advocate who will take responsibility for promoting the planning process and implementing the plan, there will be no major push to make technology an integrated part of the organization. If the plan relies on only one person, however, it will almost certainly be unsuccessful. Implementation is best when tasks and duties are shared and delegated, and when individuals across the organization buy into the use of technology and the planning process. Effective implementation of technology requires a change in culture—one that encourages people to think differently about the teaching and learning processes and the possibilities for technology use. Training and positive role modeling are important for helping to facilitate the change in attitudes and culture. Also, attention to internal and external marketing (garnering support) can help to change attitudes and build enthusiasm and participation. This kind of marketing should be based upon showing how technology will enhance the organization’s purpose and goals and solve organizational and educational problems.
Flexibility is also a key ingredient of the technology planning process. Planners should set priorities, follow a timeline, and continue to evaluate progress. Yet, day-to-day demands will intervene, priorities will change, and resource availability is likely to be inconsistent. It is therefore important to be flexible, to expect the unexpected, and yet to remain committed to pushing forward the technology planning and implementation process.

Finally, while financial resources are likely to be scarce, the plan should not be budget driven. Rather, the learning vision and organizational, technological ,and educational objectives should drive the plan. Budgeting activities should complement and follow the planning process. They are more likely to be successful when an organization knows clearly where it is headed in terms of technology use and has a written plan outlining that use. The familiar maxim holds true for technology planning: “If you don’t know where you’re going, you’re likely to end up somewhere else” and conversely: “If you know where you’re going, you’re likely to get there much more quickly.”



References:
http://www.ncrtec.org/capacity/guidepdf/guide.pdf
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Directing_Technology/Plan