Can. Should. Must? – Implementing New Technology with an End-User Focus | Check My AV
It’s fun talking directly to technology managers. It’s even better to talk directly to technology managers in Higher Ed. And a lot of the time that discussion is directly related to new technology we get to work with and how WE ABSOLUTELY KNOW WITH 100% CERTAINTY that it will make everyone’s life better if they use this amazing thing we found. And then we implement it and everyone uses it right the first time because they all went to the training, and we make our victory lap. Right? No? doesn’t work that way? Oh. Hm. Well, let’s see how everyone else went wrong (AKA coming to grips with our mistakes).
New technology and new equipment are fun, cool things that are easy to get excited about. When making a pitch to decision-makers, it can even be easy to get them excited about it. When you know money is available, it can be VERY easy to get them excited about it. The more difficult part is getting the end-user, most of the time in our cases being faculty, as excited about it. As they should, decision-makers tend to think about how something could benefit everyone, but faculty tend to think about how it affects their own teaching practices.
That’s the paradox; something that is easy to get a group of people excited about can be difficult to get an individual excited about.
I’ve discussed before how our role changes based on who we are working with. To an outside integrator, we are the end-user. To our universities, we are the integrator. While we are the integrator, we actually have two different types of end-users; decision-makers and professors. Yes, there will be some overlap in those groups but the former is a lot smaller than the latter. And though the latter group is bigger, it is made up of individuals rightfully thinking about their own processes.
To the best of your ability, don’t limit old ways when adding new technology. Yes, the technology changes and VGA needs to be replaced, but a professor may be more comfortable with the house computer and a flash drive than their own device. Just because we created the easiest way to wirelessly connect from a tablet doesn’t mean every professor will adapt to that method. That was just one example, but I think you get the picture. There are times to get rid of old technology, there are times we all must move on to new technology, and then there’s that wider-than-we’d-like-to-admit gap between the two, and we need to serve our end-users there. The most amazing new way of doing things should not limit pedagogies.
Along with that, we need to understand not only the pedagogies used on our campus but the buildings they are used in. If your campus is anything like mine, there are specific areas where it is easier to fit in a technology that fits a precise methodology. There are also general areas where it is more difficult to put in a specific-use technology and a more general approach is needed. Opposed to being assigned to a college, these buildings house all different areas of study, often in back-to-back classes. The newest/best technology that was right for the building of one college may not be best here. Customize where you can, be general where you must.
After changes have been made and all communication has taken place with necessary parties, it is important to follow up with how information is relayed to the faculty end-users. Our university does a great job of having almost everything classroom-related flow from the deans to their faculty, and the deans have always been open to communication from the technology team. I have found that this is much better than a general, campus-wide informational message, even if it comes from someone higher than the dean. I have found that sometimes when a message comes from very high up (think Provost’s or President’s office), people may think “this message is meant for the professors over there and doesn’t apply with what we’re doing over here.” It is a bit ironic as the higher the office the more weight it would seem to have, but in practice that has not been the case in my experience. Making sure direct communication has taken place and direct reports understand the objective will put you and your team in a better position to train, troubleshoot, and be successful in your implementation.
Always remember that everything is to make the learning experience better.
I was tempted to say the “classroom experience” but remembered that so much of what we do is out of the classroom as well. What we implement in a classroom may help people learn from wherever they happen to be. As we get excited about new technology, it is important to make sure we push aside how we perceive things will work and focus on how to make the experience better for all involved. The professors and students in space will change on a class-by-class basis. And then for an hour or two, it may not be a class at all but an event of some kind. Setting up our spaces to make sure we only add to enhance, and not limit, the experience will help ensure the success of all on campus.
CheckmyAV was started in order to give AV techs a quick and easy resource to check their audio-visual systems. Tired of going to video sites and dealing with ads embedded in videos and inconsistent content, checkmyAV was created to give techs useful video and audio files to check their setup while being ad-free and user friendly. checkmyAV content is created by Craig Shibley.