Having previously worked for several years as a technology-integration specialist, and then as an ICT director, this type of analysis is work I am familiar with. 2 years ago we attempted to develop a technology plan with short (3 years) and long (5 years) term goals but it never materialised due to the school suffering massive financial losses from poor investment of its capital. Consequently and subsequently, the technology infrastructure never matured, and I have since left the position and school.
At the university I work in, the situation of infrastructure is quite different although the maturity level of technology use is, paradoxically, only emergent. But having previously researched common issues with technology integration and generally organisational change some years ago, I was not surprised at all by the results.
In his unpublished dissertation, Brickner in 1999 described first and second order barriers, the first being infrastructure/hardware limitations and the 2nd being pedagogical beliefs/institutional beliefs. However, even with excellent and fully functioning hardware and infrastructure in place, change does not just happen organically across the system or institution. It needs structure, direction, and deliberate focus.
While my department has the resources, it doesn’t have the structure, direction, or deliberate focus that would result in a pathway towards meaningful change and integration with those technological resources, rather than simple access to them, which has been described in the literature since the ACOT studies in the early 90’s!
Below you can access the benchmark survey to see my evaluation and notes, in addition to a more detailed summary of the department as a whole with my recommendations for improvement.
Technology Maturity Benchmark Survey