Graphic representing the changing nature of technology   
Disclaimer /  PVCC Home Page / MCCD Home Page   
  
 
Technology Coordinating Team (TCT)
Strategic Plan for Technology
   
| Strategic Plan for Technology | Members | Minutes | Project Teams | Needs Assessment |
PVCC TCT Strategic Plan 
© 1997, MCCCD. This page last modified: 1997.10.22 by Rick Sheets
Questions and Comments to: chair Terry Grygielat grygiel@pvc.maricopa.edu
http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/committee/tct/tct_strategic_plan.html
 
 
Technology Strategic Plan
Approved by PVCC Strategic Planning Committee, 9/19/97
Overview. Because the Technology Coordinating Team believes that promoting learning is paramount to the mission of the college, we have formulated a statement about learning that has served as the foundation for our draft of the technology strategic plan. The statement is a working document. It is not intended to be definitive, but rather serves as a starting point for deepening our understanding of learning and, hence, for deepening our understanding of the relation between learning and technology.
In what follows, we will present:
History. Recall that in the Spring, 97 semester, the Technology Coordinating Team came forward with a proposal to change the way that technology planning is done at PVCC. At the core of the proposal were two ideas: that no one person or group of persons has all of the answers regarding issues involving technology and that our most valuable resource is our people.     

Over the summer, the Technology Coordinating Team has drafted a strategic plan for technology. The plan is a draft, because the proposed issues and goals need to be approved by the Strategic Planning Committee. The plan is also incomplete, because only college wide goals have been specified. Departments and divisions need to develop their technology plans, given the issues and goals set forth in the overall strategic plan for technology.
Planning process for technology. During the Spring '97 semester we also proposed that a team be established to coordinate technology planning on the college, wherein collectively members of the team would have the set of skills needed to carry out this task. At that time we put forward the following process.     
1. The Coordinating Team identifies strategic technology-related issues, based upon both external factors (opportunities and threats) and internal factors (strengths and weaknesses).  

2. The Coordinating Team also identifies college-wide technology goals.      

3. The issues are affirmed by the Strategic Planning Committee.      

4. The goals are agreed to by the Strategic Planning Committee.      

5. Project teams are established to develop initiatives to address the goals. Some of these teams will be established by the Coordinating Team, others by departments and divisions, and still others by committees in concert with the Coordinating Team.      

6. The project teams will consult with the Coordinating Team around the following kinds of questions.      

  1. Have all options been explored? 
  2. Is more information needed? 
  3. What are the final recommendations that are to be brought forward to the Strategic Planning Committee by the Technology Coordinating Team? 
7. After both the project team and the Coordinating Team have fully explored the above kinds of questions, recommendations about the initiatives will be presented by the Technology Coordinating Team to the Strategic Planning Committee. 

8. The Strategic Planning Committee will determine whether or not to fund the initiatives.
Statement About Learning. When considering the use of technology, the following factors should be considered.     
    I. Individuals learn at different rates, utilize various styles and strategies, have different motives, and activate a variety of senses (visual, auditory, tactile/kinesthetic). 

    II. In addition to the accumulation of knowledge, the learning process must also foster higher level critical thinking skills such as application, analysis synthesis, and evaluation.      
    III. Self-awareness is an important step in the learning process - what do we know, how do we learn best, how can we be certain about what we claim to know.
Significant tenants of learning include research (individual and organizational reflection on what is known about learning and what is viewed as important to know), capacity building , and practice (it is important for the organization and individuals to also reflect on what has been learned and to be involved with generative activity). 
Assumptions
Overarching assumptions.      
    1. The primary goal of the college is to promote student and organizational learning. 
    2. The collaboration of the entire college community optimizes student and organizational learning. 
    3. No one person or group of people has all the answers. 
    4. Our most valuable resource is our people.
About Technology. 
    1. Technology is an important component to the success of our learners, and to the success of PVCC's faculty, staff and administration. 
    2. Technology is viewed as a means that contributes to the accomplishment of the college's mission. 
    3. Because technology is expensive, dynamic and continuously evolving, it should be guided and supported by a technology plan that is coherent with the college's strategic plan. 
    4. Input from the college's internal and external communities should be continuously solicited and considered as its technology plan is developed, implemented and assessed. 
    5. A focused faculty and staff development process is central to optimizing the potential value-added available via technology.
About the Role of the Technology Coordinating Team. 
    1. The Technology Coordinating Team advocates key technology-oriented strategic initiatives (issues) for review and approval by the college's Strategic Planning Committee.      
    2. The Technology Coordinating Team establishes Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to measure its success.      
    3. The Technology Coordinating Team systematically communicates with its internal and external communities.      
    4. The Technology Coordinating Team views learning and sharing as its core values.      
    5. Members of the Technology Coordinating Team blend a college-wide perspective with specialized skills in instruction, technology, planning and collaboration.
Mission Statement 
For the Technology Coordinating Team.
Given rapid changes in technology and the globalization of our community through technology, the Technology Coordinating Team provides direction for the effective and efficient use of technology by the college in pursuit of its mission and goals.
Strategic Issues and Goals
Strategic Issue 1 How can PVCC align its structures, processes, and procedures to support faculty, staff, and student use of technology?
    1.1 Assess the current structures, processes, and procedures with respect to their efficiency and effectiveness in supporting faculty, staff, and student use of technology. 

    1.2 Recommend changes in order to make PVCC more effective in supporting faculty, staff, and student use of technology.      
    1.3 Support implementation of approved changes.      
    1.4 Develop processes to integrate and coordinate college efforts to support faculty, staff, and student use of technology for learning.      
    1.5 Develop a communication system enabling the integration and coordination of college efforts to support faculty, staff and student use of technology for learning.      
    1.6 Initiate an innovative technology internal grants program.      
      1.6.1 Identify criteria.     
      1.6.2 Develop application process. 
      1.6.3 Identify resources. 
      1.6.4 Develop assessment process.
Strategic Issue 2 How can we come to collectively understand and act on how technology can enhance learning?
    2.1 Provide professional development opportunities for faculty and staff that focus on the issue of technology and learning. 

    2.2 Support existing programs that use technology to promote learning.      
    2.3 Pilot initiatives integrating the use of technology with learning.      
    2.4 Assess the effectiveness of using technology to promote learning, in new and existing programs.
Strategic Issue 3 What faculty/staff development systems are needed to promote continual learning in the use of technology?
    3.1 Conduct a college-wide technology training needs assessment. 

    3.2 Determine current college resource allocations for technology training.      
    3.3 Design and implement college-wide technology training.      
    3.4 Assess effectiveness of the technology training.
Strategic Issue 4 How can we leverage trends in technology to advance, enrich, and support learning in and beyond the classroom?     
    4.1 Provide technology trend analysis. 

    4.2 Establish partnerships with external groups in terms of technology.      
    4.3 Provide resources and opportunities for faculty and staff to keep current with existing and emerging trends in technology.
Strategic Issue 5 How can PVCC best use technology to provide student access for learning and services?
    5.1 Increase use of servers by faculty and staff to provide content. 
      5.1.1 Develop a training program on server technology.      
      5.1.2 Acquire appropriate number of servers.      
      5.1.3 Evaluate and assess effectiveness of server based access. 
    5.2 Ensure adequate networking in the new construction.      
    5.3 Pilot the use of technology in the new construction.     
    5.4 Provide e-mail access to all PVCC students. 

    5.5 Encourage students to remotely connect with the web via an ISP.
Appendix A: Development of the 
Strategic Issues and Goals
The draft strategic plan for technology is based upon a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats). A 2x2 table was used, with strengths and weaknesses for the rows and opportunities and threats for the columns.
 
Opportunities
Threats
Strengths
Seize
Defend
Improve
Avoid
 
Weaknesses
      
Strategic issues were generated by pairing strengths with opportunities, weaknesses with opportunities, and strengths with threats. The initial SWOT analysis generated a large number of observations. For example, under weaknesses we identified the following concerns.
  1. Lack of a clearly identified relationship between the use of technology and learning 
  2. Institutional organizational technology infrastructure
  3. Inconsistent perception of what technology is and its applications
  4. Lack of training and resources for training
  5. No ongoing strategic technology plan
  6. Lack of a relationship between institutional strategic planning and technology
  7. Funding and operational decisions
  8. Inefficient use of technology
  9. Low levels of technology awareness (what's available)
  10. Perception that student access is limited
  11. Not enough technical support for instructional applications
  12. Limited expectations of technology
  13. Not enough emphasis placed on technology competence when hiring new personnel
  14. In some staff areas the proper mix of skills (technology and people) is not evident 
  15. System is not backed up on regular basis
  16. Inadequate technical back-up with personnel
  17. No documentation, protocols, and procedures
  18. "Playing catch up" with other schools in terms of technology 
  19. Core employees are overworked
We found that several of the weaknesses could be grouped together, and that this would make it easier for us to define strategic issues. For example, the following above numbered items could all be grouped under the heading: "limited understanding of technology (its uses and relation to learning)".
    (1)Lack of a clearly identified relationship between the use of technology and learning 
    (3) Inconsistent perception of what technology is and its applications 
    (9) Low levels of technology awareness (what's available)
Consequently, we reduced the weaknesses listed above to the following:
    1. Limited understanding of technology (its uses and relation to learning) 
    2. Lack of sufficient planning and organization 
    3. Not enough training, support leading to competence (use of technology) 
    4. Limited student access 
    5. Potential burnout of over extended employees
This enabled us to more easily identify strategic issues related to technology. 
To illustrate how issues were derived from pairings, here is issue 1 along with the pairings that support it.

Issue 1: How can PVCC align its structures, processes, procedures, and resources to support employee and student use of technology in learning?  
    O/S: leveraging resources/commitment to technology+institutional willingness to change, sense of urgency+dedicated faculty and staff (commitment to learning). 
    O/S: general refocus on student and organizational learning/dedicated faculty and staff (commitment to learning)+students eager to use technology. 
    O/W: General refocus on student and organizational learning/lack of sufficient planning and organization+potential burnout of overextended employees. 
    T/S: Competition for qualified people/dedicated faculty and staff (commitment to learning). 
    T/S: Competition for qualified students/dedicated faculty and staff (commitment to learning)+students eager to learn technology+commitment to technology.
O - opportunity, S - strength, T - threat, W - weakness. 
Once the issues were identified, we then identified "SMART" goals, which directly address each issue. To be "SMART" goals, the goals have to be Specific, Measurable, Assignable, Realistic, and Timely. The results of our work is the draft strategic plan, given above.
Needless to say, there is still much work that needs to be done. For example, we still need to identify major actions to be taken to fulfill each goal, when those actions should be taken, and the parties responsible for carrying them out.

 
Appendix B: People Directly Involved
Originally the Technology Steering Committee (a subcommittee of the 30+ member Technology Committee) consisted of six people: Patti Marsh, Hank Mancini, Kurt Hill, John Chavez, Jerry Baxter, and Terry Grygiel. In the Spring '96 semester, Queta Chavez and Walt Thielen were added to the Steering Committee. Richard Barber assumed Jerry Baxter's position in the Fall '96 semester. At that time, Bob Bendotti and Ken Hart were added to the Steering Committee, to provide guidance in strategic planning. 
 

The sentiment of the larger Technology Committee at that time was that no progress was being made in technology planning. In the October '96 meeting of the Technology Committee, problems regarding the committee were expressed and assumptions regarding technology and regarding the Technology Committee were elicited. The Steering Committee was charged with looking at the mission and structure of the Technology Committee. From that October meeting until the middle of December, members of the Steering Committee met, on average, twice a week for two to three hours per meeting. 
 

In January '97 the Steering Committee felt that we could go forward with a presentation of our work to the whole college. At that time, the Technology Coordinating Team was formed from members of the Steering Committee: Richard Barber, Bob Bendotti, Hank Mancini, Patti Marsh, John Chavez, and Terry Grygiel. Paul Dale joined the team later in the spring semester. Rick Sheets, Phil Cram, and Jeanne Franco joined the team at the end of the Spring '97 semester. 
 

The Technology Coordinating Team meets once a week for two hours. In addition, there are outside assignments. During the Spring '97 semester, members of the team met with departments, divisions, and major groups on college: the Strategic Planning Committee, SAASS, PSA, the Division Chairs, the President's Cabinet, the Faculty Senate, and the Faculty Development Committee. In addition, members of the team met with previous members of the Technology Committee. 
 

The Coordinating Team was also asked to write a description for the "IRTS" position, consistent with the separation of responsibility: budget (Strategic Planning), technology planning (the college community, coordinated through the Technology Coordinating Team), and implementation. The team also served on the screening committee for that position, along with Mary Lou Mosley, Art Coleman, and Rich Lang.  

This summer, the Coordinating Team participated in an Ocitillio retreat and has met thirteen times to work on the technology strategic plan. In addition, we have met three times to screen candidates for the "IRTS" position, the last meeting going from 10:30 AM to 6:00 PM.

Service on the Technology Coordinating Team requires a very strong commitment in both time and energy. Two of our members have decided to resign from the Coordinating Team, in order to pursue other matters. Patti Marsh will be putting more time into alternative modes of delivery and into the OE/OE program. Hank Mancini, in growing the Chemistry program at PVCC, has taken on a course overload this semester. We have been fortunate in having them on the team and will miss them. 

The members of the Coordinating Team today are: Phil Cram, Bob Bendotti, Jeanne Franco, Rick Sheets, John Chavez, Paul Dale, and Terry Grygiel.  
 
 

Finally, we believe that the college community should be proud of its achievements this past year. Here are some of our accomplishments, in the area of technology.  

    1. The Faculty Development Committee had initiated a training program in web development, which has been developed by the Web Development Committee. Workshops for faculty and staff will be held this semester. In addition, the Faculty Development Committee has sponsored and/or supported workshops in HTML (Jeanne Franco), Web Search Techniques (Donna Rebadow), Micrograde (Gary Quick), Instructional Uses of the Web (Jeanne Franco and John Chavez), Presentation in the Classroom (Walt Thielen, Gary Quick, Steve Platte, and Kurt Hill), and Using Netscape (Lisa Miller).

    2. The Web Development Committee has created guidelines for web pages, has developed the web workshops mentioned above, has created a library of graphics images, and has begun developing a process for faculty and staff to put web pages onto the www server.  
    3. The Dream Team has developed alternate formats for instructional delivery and has piloted (through the work of Donna Rebadow) creation of a course to be offered over the internet. They have also presented their work at a conference in Oslo, Norway.  
    4. Video conferences relating the use of technology to learning have been presented on college.  
    5. Candidates were screened for the "IRTS" position and Phil Cram has been hired on a one-year-only basis for that position.  
    6. We have changed the way technology planning is done.  
    7. We have drafted a strategic plan for technology.
We believe that the coming semester will be even more productive, given the commitment of our community.

 
FEEDBACK (was requested from all PVCC employees)
The above information was presented to attendees of PVCC’s all-employee meeting on August 18, 1997.  The handout included the following feedback request as a cover sheet to the document.  
  
    "We would appreciate your feedback. Please return pages 1 and 2 to Terry Grygiel, J 133 
    by Tuesday, August 26. 
    1. Are the issues that we have identified appropriate?
    2. Do the goals address the issues?
    3. What is the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of the draft technology strategic plan?
    4. Is the process, as outlined, workable? Do you have any suggestions for improving the process?

    5. Other comments."
| Strategic Plan for Technology | Members | Minutes | Project Teams | Needs Assessment |
PVCC TCT Strategic Plan 
© 1997, MCCCD. This page last modified: 1997.10.22 by Rick Sheets
Questions and Comments to: chair Terry Grygielat grygiel@pvc.maricopa.edu
http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/committee/tct/tct_strategic_plan.html