Technology Plans

This week's class section was entirely about technology planning in libraries and was probably some of the most reading we've had yet. Technology planning has been historically overlooked and mishandled in many organizations.

Coincidentally we've been dealing with this at work for that past several weeks as we've stepped back to reevaluate the purpose and function of our digital repository. We're in the midst of creating documentation about and for our digitization efforts as we try to come to terms with the scope, development and commitment of our projects. We'll be continuing this process for some time and as we are creating "living documents" we'll have to periodically revisit our plans to evaluate its effectiveness and adapt to future situations. I will probably be involved in technology planning throughout my career considering the complexity of digital libraries/repositories software, hardware, and the specialized staff who offer front line services and the management and maintenance of the systems.

This unit could not have come at a better time. I was able to bring our readings in and share them with the rest of our functional requirements group to help guide and also back up many of our decisions. I think I've also indirectly been promoting the SIRLS DigIn program buy showing all the value I'm getting out of the course in only the first section.

Some key points I've taken away from the readings this week include:

A plan must be a living document meeting the the mission of an organization and you must be not only be aware of technophobes but vigilant against technolust to avoid scope creep. (Stephens, Michael. Technoplans vs. Technolust. Library Journal, November 1, 2004).

A technology plan must be flexible. It is an ever changing, political document explaining in simple language to investors (internal and external) that you know what you are doing. It should be generic enough to get the point across without committing to too many specifics that you honestly can't anticipate and most wouldn't understand. The Arizona State Library's 2007-20012 technology plan (pdf) does does a wonderful job of laying out lots of goals and needs without getting bogged down in too much detail that would undoubtedly change drastically in the five year period it covers. (Michael Schuyler's Computers in Libraries article Life is what happens to you when you’re making other plans. Computers in Libraries, April 2000, pp. 54-55)

Staff, training, support, and maintenance have to be taken into consideration when making plans and also applying for grants. Most libraries cannot afford to offer sustainable services through self funding and will need to coordinate with other organizations, particularly state libraries to leverage funds. Libraries must make sure government policy makers understand the importance of funding and the impact of programs like Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) and E-rate assignments. (Bertot, Carlo et al. Study Shows New Funding Sources Crucial to Technology Services. American Libraries March 2002 v(33)n(2) 2002 pp. 57-59)

I compared the California State Library (pdf) and Arizona State Library plans, since I've have lived in both states and have a vested interest in them. I was impressed with their focus and noticed trends specific to their function and politics. At first, I was a little perplexed that they weren't more "specific" until the readings emphasized the flexibility and generalized nature these plans need in order to be successful.

Although not necessarily a library tech plan I found the Scottsdale Unified School District tech plan (pdf) to follow along with the best practices of the readings. It emphasized needs, mission, budget, and provided several goals with concrete implementation strategies. It also laid out objectives on applying for E-rate annual funding.

Ultimately I've taken from this experience that operating without a plan is like putting your cart in front of the horse. You won't get far and you will loose out on partnerships and funding critical to the survival of your digital initiatives. Most technology projects fail not because they lack expertise or initiative but because they lack solid planning, buy-in of stakeholders, organization, and reasonable scope.