Information Technology Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Planning’

 

The law of diminishing marginal returns

 

I recently had a bit of a debate with a technology consultant friend who knows I am huge on content and detail within project planning and the contracts that support a technology deal.   We found ourselves speaking about that principle of economics called the law of diminishing marginal returns.   His point was that for project owners who are in the midst of planning a new project—gathering requirements, fleshing out specifications, polling individual preferences, etc. —the law of diminishing marginal returns sets in much primeval than they realize.   The resources spent during the initial planning stages produce some hefty returns.   But soon after, spending the same amount of resources again, and the next time after that, will produce smaller and smaller chunks of benefit.   When you are caught up in a planning process, it is often difficult to refer the point at which your cost-benefit curve has begun to flatten.

 

What my friend was saying seemed plausible, and because I did not have any evidence to the contrary, I just accepted his theory.   Then I thought of a doable consequence of his theory, and I said, “You’re not going to go out and begin spreading this thought around the technology community, are you?”

 

Threatened evangelist

 

My fear was this.   Here was I, this evangelist of content and detail within apiece information technology project, and crossways the plateau was a fellow who could undermine the past and future progress of my mission by telling folks they actually need less planning and critical thinking for their technology projects and not more.    Project owners’ planning and thinking are, after all, what generate the content and detail I crave and have come to respect.

 

Well, we talked some more, and my friend added some clarification.   As it turns out, he was suggesting mainly that project owners not waste time and money planning what can't be planned effectively at a particular point in time.  Made sense.   I was still squirming, but now a bit relieved.

 

Obvious example

 

You have decided to use a staged or iterative approach for your next project.   You will purchase some off-the-shelf software and customize it a clean amount.   Phase 1 might involve extending a discrete element of existing functionality and then wiring up to a live database for some testing.

 

In this example, there is really no point to thinking through the details of Phases 2 through 5 or estimating costs within those phases, except in either case at a very high level, because:  1) unless Phase 1 is finished smoothly and with an acceptable cost, you will never get to the subsequent phases; and 2) you have not yet tested your assumptions about costing within Phase 1.   Indeed, you probably selected an iterative approach for this project because of your inability to plan your project effectively from begin to finish.   

 

Less obvious examples

           

My friend and I talked some more, and we moved beyond the obvious examples, the ones that are simple to accept.   My natural reaction was to resist any further extension of his theory because I knew he would be slicing closer and closer to the bone, threatening the very foundation of my evangelist mission.   However, sitting before me was a bright mortal and a clear thinker, with almost two decades of experience with technology.   I had to listen (nervously).   “When the student is ready to learn, the instructor will appear. ”    

 

Requirements gathering – A good thing, no doubt, and something the experts have been encouraging us to do more of over the last ten years.   “Insufficient stipulations development cited as leading cause of project failure. ”  When it comes to requirements, we have been led to believe that more is not enough.   Surely there is a point at which more stipulations are not helpful (and might even be detrimental), but the experts have not told us how to determine just when we have turned the corner.

 

Specifications development – Same story.   Develop specifications thoroughly now or risk project failure.   

 

User preferences – Same story.   Involve your users in your planning process.   Otherwise, “If you build it, they won’t come. ” 

 

We have heard so much preaching on these topics that apiece of us can rattle off a number of clichés for apiece topic.   The advice has been mostly good, but we are hammered with it by speaker after speaker, in article after article.

 

Reconciliation

 

As much as I resisted the flow of this discussion with my friend, I have to admit that what he was saying prefabricated perfect sense to me.   But now I had to find some way to reconcile two divergent concepts:  on the one hand, my long-held belief that more project planning and critical thinking should always be one’s aspiration, and on the other, my realization that you truly can have too much of a good thing.

 

Ultimately, I found the reconciliation I needed with just one insight.   It occurred to me that, with all of the speakers and literature out there telling us to engage in more ideal practices for our technology projects and more often, we have become conditioned to believe that more is not enough—in fact, because of the nature of the beast, more can never be enough.   We have been doing more and more, and the incremental improvements we have witnessed, together with the new articles we read, encourage us to keep doing more and more.   Of course, our intention is good, but when can we stop doing more?  When should we stop doing more?

 

It’s all relative

 

I think it all boils down to relativity—your relative sophistication as a technology buyer, and the relative nature of your particular project.   If you started heeding the experts’ advice many years ago, your approach to buying technology might be evenhandedly sophisticated by now.   You might be doing an appropriate level of planning for your projects, and maybe you occasionally do too much.   Other organizations are just now opening their eyes to a superior way, perhaps prompted by a current problematic project.  

 

Second, when enough is enough depends on your particular project.   Your goal is to plan effectively and thoroughly for all aspects of your project, but be mindful that your present need or capability to plan certain elements might not yet exist.   Further, even if you have the present need and capability to plan a certain aspect of your project, do not overdo it.   For example, do not continue to add more and more stipulations to your stipulations basket as if quantity were your only goal.

           

On this last point, remind yourself that requirements, specifications, individual preferences, and apiece other item on your project-planning list have at least one thing in common.   Once you have thought of them and cemented them into some spreadsheet, they have a way of hanging around for the duration of your planning process, and often through completion of your project.   Instead of inactivity to whack some of these hangers-on toward the end of a phase or at the end of your project (“backward creep” of scope or deliverables), attempt to prioritize them at an primeval stage of your project.   You will not even open Stipulations Container 2 until the high-priority stipulations in Container 1 have been fatigued (satisfied or deliberately discarded).   A prioritization approach could save you time, dollars and other resources.

 

Conclusion

           

For many of us, it might be ideal not to let go of our conditioned response to project planning and critical thinking—not just yet anyway.   The conditioning represents an overall positive motivation, its underlying purpose is producing results, and our technology procurement process, including its planning element, might still have plenty of room for improvement.   The more sophisticated technology buyers among us might want to place the brakes on the conditioned response a bit.  

 

Regardless of what camp you are in (and until further notice from the experts!), be at least mindful of the fact that there is such a thing as too much project planning.   I, for one, am now a believer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2008 All rights reserved.  Nuckles Law Firm

In today’s world, has transformed the workplace. Personal technology is acquirable to one or the other in almost any job or profession. To prepare students for the fag market, we recognize that the integration of personal technology in the classroom are essential. To achieve this integration correctly implement careful planning has gone before. We are ready to explore various means of implementation, there is no perfect system or a “one size fits all” software needs. Each institution must decide how they implement technology and how fast they will. It is also important for educational leaders for their support and the collection of preferences for both instructors and students.

Appeal In his article “Investing in digital David McArthur explored the intent that the decision whether in terms of technology as a means of education is already done. What to do is to plan carefully to ensure that the objectives that the region has long been the integration of technology used properly.

The leader in the field of higher education needs for planning and investment in e-learning. “(McArthur, 2004, P3) E-learning has become a recognized method of education and the” Web “was accepted in the workplace and at home. The full integration of new technologies to existing learning is become imperative. is done correctly in the planning, if the learning environment must be healthy to use technology to increase the instructor / student communication, the morale of instructors through the use of a center for online resources, “(McArthur, 2004, p2) using Web-based programs to improve recruitment and superior prepare students for the fag market.

There are potential problems to overcome when planning for integration of technology. Firstly, technological options are numerous and only some are suitable for a school or college. Secondly, while many institutions, the intent of ​​the education system must be used on increase e-learning, it can be boring and radical.

Some key points in the potential success of the adoption of e-learning include (but are not limited to) the school or a university personal network current capacity, the willingness of schools to change leaders, current or likely to support resources, the potential accessibility of e-learning services for students.

looking for a comprehensive long-term there are a number of options available. One is “progressive implementation.” sound (McArthur, 2004, p. 4), during the critical planning should not be almost complete, all components of the final plan must be in place early. A plan provided over several years of implementation can be used. Not only will this grant the development of resources, it is doable to resolve the elements, as apiece stage progresses. Another is “What kind of subcontracting. ” (McArthur, 2004, p. 4) Not each institution has the internal resources (personnel, equipment, facilities) to implement a development plan stage itself. Outsourcing can save costs and time. Even though it might be difficult to convince some leaders of the potential benefit of outsourcing, especially since this type of expertise “is considered an quality base of education” (McArthur, 2004, p. 6 ), comparisons of the business community can help demonstrate the benefits.

In his article “The Elephant Rally: Coping with the technological revolution in our schools,” Scott Tunison focused on the themes: the extent to which a schools have personal technology and visit 2. The tactics used to maximize the potential benefits and reduce dangers arising from the integration of technology.

The reference to ‘the elephant breeding “Management is allegorical of the latest technology and learning to integrate it into the school” or move aside and let the “technological revolution” is over. (Tunison, 2004, p7) or so, technology education is not negligible and it can not handle themselves.

took a lot of education is essentially unchanged from the distant past. The methods used were largely appropriate for the topic at hand . A perception might be that if the concepts have not changed then learned to change his method of teaching is not necessary. But even if some of the concepts have not changed, the context of the application and the context of the learner added. Even though a personal learning environment, they were often replaced simply entered for other tools that already exist and are in place, tools like paintings, books, etc. This means that the learning process remains unchanged, when new applications are not for the say of the art fully exploit

.

education reform is necessary if we are to meet the needs of our students. If our electronic culture media, entertainment, etc. is the context in which we must fulfill our students.

develops changes that might have led educators are worried. The learning paradigm must pass from the instructor as a source of knowledge for students as active learners. Tunison cites Fullan (2001) refer three “major phases of change. Launch, implementation “phases are identified as” the institutionalization and “

Introduction includes some company proposes changes in direction. Sometimes students ask for change and sometimes form groups of teachers, administrators and parents’ committees, a process of planning for technology integration to begin.

institutionalization includes the perception of the senses. Arguably this is the stage of “damage control”. clear policies, well-trained instructors and administrators, and school leadership support is essential in this phase. It is important at this stage to record relevant data on the program for the analysis. This was well planned and can be anticipated or “bugs” to develop. Data analysis in the “fine tuning” of the program can support.

educators> p will be the importance of technology in the educational environment and willingness to integrate. Technology is large in our culture and the accomplishment of our students have a total answer to their needs in the world they know. We can reach, in fact, more students and perhaps the tide of dropouts.

In his article “What students learn about computers” Judith O’Donnell Dooling, the reader, that students, parents and administrators have particular preferences in terms of technology personal knowledge.

Over time, the importance of personal and related technologies made. However, while spending on personal has increased, some schools have not been as successful in the finding of specific personal skills and his power as an instrument of learning and teaching had been.

Student responses were varied. Many stated they learn about personal at an primeval age, usually by an experienced mortal began. Some students, especially in grades four to seven thought was the ideal independent learning.

Interestingly, students of both sexes stated they had reasonable confidence in their capabilities had a computer, but some differences in perception emerged. To a certain degree of girls, but especially the boys thought that personal were too technical for girls.

The students had the experience outside of school, instructors and access to personal had to learn a significant impact on student performance computers. Even if they had at home, the personal has seen more than a toy, they began to see them superior as a tool in school. They recognized the importance and power of personal increases their exposure.

Perhaps unlike other subjects in school students learn, students exchanged tips, personal hardware and software suggested and generally discussed the personal in question during his lunch break and recess.

The students also saw the importance of personal literacy is. relating to the use of work experience after the school they found that no matter where you work, you’ll use the personal to some extent.

Instructors are concerned that not all shared the same jurisdiction. Many mentioned that often students more than the instructor does not know. Instructors have also observed that even though the students had a lot of personal knowledge, it is often limited to games and software. Another attending was that personal programs are highly variable school to school.

instructors expressed that personal skills should be relevant. This, it must be applied in the curriculum and used as an integral tool for learning. All concurred the redefined role of the instructor and wage professional development to the needs of the changing needs.

In summary, we have seen that information technology is essential in the educational setting for learning in the society today. identification, planning and implementation must be done carefully to refrain waste and doable incompatibility with the goals of school leaders must be convinced that the paradigm shift is not a option; .. that instructors and students must adopt new roles, and support for important new ideas

We

students where they are met. Our culture has developed systems for technology, students are accustomed. To instruct in an outdated mode continue to make our students a disservice, especially when the need we prepare for the job market after graduation. We must also be aware, instructors and student preferences, if we anticipate them to fully exploit the new resources. References

McArthur, D. (2004) investment in digital resources in Hirschbühl J. & D. Bishop (eds .) Personal in Education – Guilford, CT .. (11th edition, p. 2 6) .. -Hill/Dushkin McGraw (investing in digital reprint New Directions for Higher Education, (2002), p. 77 -. 84)

Tunison, S. (2004.) Elephant breeding covering the technological revolution in our schools Hirschbühl J. & D. Bishop (Eds.), Personal in Education (11th Edition , pages 7 to 12) Guilford, CT: McGraw-Hill … / Dushkin (herds of elephants focus, dealing with the technological revolution in our schools Journal of Educational Thought (2002), p. 167 to 181)

..

Dooling, JO (2004) What students on computers.. Hirschbühl in J. & D. Bishop (ed.), want to learn about personal in education – Guilford, CT ( 11th edition, p. 18 21): McGraw-Hill/Dushkin .. (From what the students want to Personal Learning Educational Leadership, (2000), p. 20 -. 24)

Fulan, M. (2001 ) The new meaning of educational reform (3rd Ed) New York: Instructors College Press …

.

More technology article