To many of my friends, I’m something of a Luddite. They all have newer phones than I do; these days, I’m usually about three models behind the curve. Heck, I didn’t even have a smart phone until almost 2014. I miss things that happen on LinkedIn and Instagram, because I don’t use them. And I’m more of a lurker than an actual poster on Facebook and Twitter. My wife often laughs at me, because I lose my phone in the house and have to use Find My iPhone at least three times a week. I do have a gaming console in the house…but it’s a PlayStation 2. 

At work, I’m well known as a skeptic. I am often the one eliciting the eye rolls from my colleagues as I play devil’s advocate about a solution, or the one who might stick with a certain technology tool a little longer than others. When there is a problem to solve, I’m always looking for a free or low-cost option first. You might think that this sounds backward, in a technology-focused discipline where it is indeed my job to move forward and pursue new directions in instruction. So why would I hold back from the edge, and choose instead to look over it from a safe distance? It turns out that there are a number of advantages to treating design work with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Cost

First, cost. It can be really tempting to go for the newest, nearest pretty shiny thing and dive right into it. To be honest, part of me always does have that knee jerk reaction to new stuff; we all do. But the newest cutting-edge stuff also comes with a cutting edge price, and it can be costly to follow a whim without a real direction. Next time something really piques your interest in a new technology, think about applications for it. If you cannot immediately think of a need this would serve, you probably don’t immediately need to have it. Depending on the cost of the tool and its integration into your system, it could be much more costly to switch to something new (taking into account the tool’s cost as well as the human cost of producing documentation and training) than it might be simply to explore strategies to leverage existing resources in a different way. And you also want to make sure that you’re not creating a solution in search of a problem. You may have an amazing vision for what faculty could do with this new technology, but if they don’t share your vision or see the value in it, you will have spent a lot of money on something that is not ultimately going to see much use.

Unproven Technology

Remember also that this technology you are so interested in may well be unproven. Technology companies often are in a rush to get a new product to market, and as such they may often release new tech before it’s truly ready for prime time. Think of how often you have to get software and firmware updates on an electronic device. These are often to fix bugs just as much as they are to provide new feature enhancements, and they often result from the discoveries of people just like you that the tech doesn’t work as anticipated in certain situations. When you’re looking over a new piece of tech, think once again about applications. Who is already using this tech, and for what? Is their end goal the same as yours? You can learn a lot from the documented experiences and decisions of others. It’s well worth the time to investigate what others are doing, and what pain points they have encountered, to avoid them yourself. Sometimes the technology will prove itself over time, and you can move forward then knowing you have made a smarter decision.

Adoption

In a large institution, adoption and training is always a consideration. Large institutions do not make technology changes lightly, whether it is adopting new tools or procedures, or sunsetting older technologies. Every time a new technology resource is considered, it must be thoroughly vetted by Information Services to make sure that it works as intended, that there are use cases to support its adoption, and that it does not cause problems with existing technologies. For example, we had a plugin for our LMS in testing, and IS found that when it was dropped in, it broke several other tools we’d already put in. Obviously, that one got the boot.

Training

Once a tool can be safely adopted, and there is a reason to adopt it, there is a massive push for training. This necessitates creating documentation, both print and video, and tasking a department with creating a training curriculum and leading workshops for faculty and staff who will be using the new tool. As the institution grows larger, there are more and more faculty and staff who will require training, and this will require more hours of work and personnel from the department tasked with training. We last switched LMSes in 2010, and it took approximately nine months from initial training and documentation creation through soft launch and full integration University-wide. This is certainly not something to be undertaken lightly, and faculty do not often enjoy switching from something they may be used to a newer, unproven (to them) piece of technology. We actually got emails during our LMS switch that said, “How could you do this to me?” The reason departments like my Center for Teaching and Learning exist in the first place is because technology is changing way too fast for faculty to be experts on that and their discipline, and it’s up to some dedicated individuals to shepherd them through the processes they will need to succeed. It’s important to weigh out the value of switching or adopting something new against the amount of training it will require to actually make the adoption work smoothly. Since there is a direct correlation between the size of the institution and the size of the training effort, you should choose wisely.

Short Shelf Life

Technology is fickle. Some things endure, while others prove to be a flash in the pan and disappear shortly. You want to be sure that you’re not hitching your wagon to something that may not be around when you need it. Technology companies can be as volatile as the products they create, and they are always buying one another out, making deals together and changing their product offerings, which can make it tough to know you have a long-term solution. You should expect that any technology you use could potentially have a short shelf life, and that anything you use may not be there forever. It’s important to have a backup strategy or a failsafe, proven technology to lean on just in case your new flashy solution fails. Companies fold all the time, sometimes without warning, and they can sometimes take you down with them if you’re not careful.

Reliability Versus New Features

Finally, the importance of reliability versus function must be taken into consideration. Are you looking at a new technology specifically because it does something your existing tech cannot, or is it just the newest thing? Sometimes it can be useful to try and wait out the curve to see how the tool is being used, and what pitfalls others are experiencing. If you have a wealth of experience to draw on from others, it can help make the decision on whether or not you really need something new. In some cases, you may be finding a technology that gives you an ability you’ve always wanted, and it’s very tempting to jump in with both feet. But if you’re going to work without a net, you have to expect that eventually you’re going to fall. Going out on your own with something new means that you have to be prepared that it may not in fact do what you hoped, and be prepared to salvage your instruction if it doesn’t. Ask yourself if you’re willing to deal with possible technical issues with a new tool, and if it’s worth the risk to not just use something reliable and proven.

Being a technology skeptic doesn’t mean you have to be against technology; it’s more about adopting a healthy and realistic attitude toward a changing landscape. Tech adoption at the University level is much different than buying yourself a new device, with much different metrics in terms of cost, time commitment, and support, and as such, it demands a much more measured and cautious approach. It’s no fun, but if something fails for one professor, they might have a single class flop. Contrast that with an institution with thousands of faculty potentially having the same problem, and you begin to get an idea of the scale of failure that is possible for a major technology integration. Be sure you have an idea of your needs. In this case, it pays to not believe everything you see!