 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
We read,with interest, the message regarding NSW Government Computers In Schools (GCIS) initiative. We thought we'd share some experiences from our own home town.
In the USA, President Clinton has made a commitment that every American classroom will be connected to Internet by 2001. The beaurocrats are now frantically running around trying to figure out how to meet the agenda.
It sounds like Australia is doing much better than the USA - See what you think:
When The President hands down project deadlines some beaurocrats have been known to simply seem to say "yes sir" whilst having no ability to evaluate the technical requirements/solutions needed to win the day. The consequence is that projects are invariably late, 100s of percent over budget, and result in poor publicity for all concerned. In Corporate America this repetitive gross beaurocratic incompetence would be generally be considered totally unacceptable - The President expects to be advised by professionals who would identify any potential difficulties and negotiate realistic and acceptable compromises that bring some credit to all concerned - instead of having to continually close ranks and go into a white-wash damage control.
Apart from matters of general policy, some departments here have started to centralize the purchase and distribution of computer hardware.
The major argument in favour of centralization is the assumption that schools are full of teachers who generally have no ability to make a comparative judgement about the quality of computer hardware, and invariably purchase cheap and unsuitable equipment (which may be correct in a significant number of cases - but not ALL cases).
"Many schools used to choose their computers from faxed "flyers"; Their decisions were based on lowest cost and minimal information - and with no evaluation whatsoever prior to ordering.Considering that figures in the tens of millions of dollars are involved, it would seem that this alone would justify allocation of some minimal time and resources for the purpose of empirical system testing and evaluation!It was argued that centralized buying would allow equipment to be thoroughly specified, through a process involving both quantitative and qualitative evaluation - by people having expertise in technical standards and to the special needs of schools.
Done right, this policy obviously has a lot of merit.
So what is the experience of these schools now since centalized purchasing has come into effect?
In practice, the result is a system where schools now choose their computers from a faxed "flyer" based on lowest cost and minimal information - and with no evaluation whatsoever prior to ordering!
The difference is that now, the actual decisions are made by "qualified" people - who have since demonstrated that their outcomes are little or no better than those previously achieved by the average school teacher/librarian."
Sound familiar?
So, what has changed under the new policy?
Some people would argue that schools now have a system working to ensure a minimum standard is met. The problem is that all schools are now reduced to accepting "the minimum" standard even though the suppliers themselves would often not consider such systems meet the standard of their own "entry level" home systems; let alone the needs of a more demanding school or corporate environment.So what can this USA experience offer for Australian schools?
First ensure that you identify the actual needs of schools and "on the ground" staff (such as Technology Advisers) at all stages in the process, and actually act on their recommendations sometimes, even before the decsions are fait-accompli!Secondly obtain the co-operation of experienced, hands-on, computer professionals - NOT "company representatives" with a vested interest in one solution provider or another!
Publish information about your plans and the course you intend to take, and ask for some feedback prior to burning your bridges.
Ensure that all computer hardware is subjected to independent test and evaluation and that the results of that evaluation are freely available to those who ask.
Independent testing and evaluation guidelines:
There is nothing remarkable about this simple and incomplete list. Perhaps the only remarkable thing is that these minimal requirements are not met more often!
- Engage a third party to contact each of the suppliers and, after some discussion, ask them to supply an example of the best spec'd machine that they are prepared to provide to schools under the rollout contract. Each supplier would be required to confirm (at least verbally) that these same specifications would be adhered to when meeting any subsequent orders from schools.
- Assemble some bench-mark testing software (mostly freely available off the WWW).
- Do comparative testing for each of the machines under controlled conditions attributed to independent third party.
- Evaluate the results, and then refer these results to each supplier to see if they offer any solutions or hints in regards to improved outcomes for their own hardware.
- Analyse and tabulate the results.
- Results should then be made available for consideration/evaluation by schools when making their own choice as to hardware suitability and quality. This does not need to be done by DET representatives, and it's better that it is done by third party even if only to meet auditor requirements.
Count your lucky stars this could never happen in Australian schools!
E & R
© 1997-98 Eric and Randy. NOT-WORKS is thrown together by Randy Scot and Eric Fog.
More links to NOT-WORKS stuff can be found here.
You are welcome to link here or store these NOT-WORKS comments on your site.
If you do, we'd appreciate it if you let us know and mention the origin.