The design and implementation of technology can prove a particularly daunting challenge for campus planners and project designers. Specialization is required for the selection and implementation of technologies including the familiar network, telecommunications, and data-processing functions, and also the more esoteric emerging technology labs and simulation spaces, financial trading rooms, and teleconference centers. These varied learning spaces are vital to the core goal of educating students, yet technology implementation often follows a predictable path â€” with mixed results.
At the University of Virginia alone, nearly $750 million dollars have been spent on new buildings or building renovations since 2000, with an additional $500 million in the pipeline. The $4 million technology implementation in the recently completed McIntire School of Commerceâ€™s $70.5 million, 156,000-square-foot Rouss and Robertson Halls did not follow the predictable path, however. That project followed a unique IT planning and implementation path â€” with excellent results.
Typical Technology Implementation Process
Many construction projects follow predictable technology implementation processes:
By following this predictable path, a campus runs the risk of becoming saddled with technologies that are both expensive and underutilized. The campus further risks shortchanging fundamental infrastructure and instructional technologies for budgetary reasons.
For the McIntire School project, we applied some basic tenets throughout the conceptual design, design/development, and implementation phases that addressed many of the common challenges. Following are a few of our lessons learned.
Define the Core Business
A primary goal of higher education is delivering instruction to students. Therefore, one foundational tenet for the design team should be, â€œHow can we design systems that facilitate and enhance the core business of instruction?â€ For the McIntire School addition and renovation, the project team made classroom instruction the most important element in the technology design decision process. To do this, we incorporated extensive faculty feedback from each academic area into the decision matrix. (For examples of the spaces they recommended and we implemented, see Learning Spaces at the McIntire School of Commerce sidebar.)
Another key part of the design process included reaching out to peers at other institutions and traveling to see what worked at other campuses. Remember, you know your business better than the consultants, architects, or general contractor, and it is your responsibility to decide what is appropriate for your facility.
Recommendation: Do your homework, involve key stakeholders, and hire trained personnel to represent the institution. The money invested in staff who can represent the interests of the institution by making informed and unbiased decisions will return value over and over.
Donâ€™t Let Budget Drive Strategy
Strategy should drive the budget in a technology project. For the McIntire School project, we concentrated on the technologyâ€™s purpose (What), how it was to be used (How), and what was to be accomplished within the technology setting (Why) instead of focusing on the specific technologies.
In some cases, letting strategy lead the purchase decision led to cost savings. For example, following our process model (What, How, Why) for the specification and purchase of projectors led to major cost savings. Academic areas like Finance and Accounting primarily use programs like PowerPoint and Excel, so an $8,000 projector does fine in place of the high-end $30,000 alternative. In another case, we ignored the recommendation to put videoconferencing (VTC) equipment in all 15 classrooms on day one; instead, we equipped four rooms of different sizes with VTC technology. These four VTC-equipped rooms have more than met the schoolâ€™s needs through the first two semesters of use.
In other cases, strategy drove the school to spend more. The importance of the financial markets in the schoolâ€™s curriculum cannot be overstated, so additional dollars were spent to provide striking visual reminders in the form of LED tickers and tracker boards. In another example, we designed a cable TV system to distribute high-definition digital signage and satellite TV to every screen in the facility. This could have been accomplished at a reduced cost, but the system we chose has provided the flexibility to broadcast emergency messages and speaker presentations over cable TV.
A 282-foot LED ticker and tracker boards line the walls of the Financial Trading Centers just below ceiling level.
High-definition digital signage and satellite TV are available on every screen in the facility.
In every case we based the budget on what the school hoped to accomplish, not on what could be accomplished with the budget available. Commonsense decision making that linked the schoolâ€™s strategy to the projectâ€™s purpose resulted in cost savings and superior technology â€” all at roughly half the budget proposed in the original bid documents.
Recommendation: Keep the What, How, and Why for your project front and center in all planning efforts and link strategy to every technology decision. Let strategy drive the budget.
Invest in Infrastructure
The buildingsâ€™ architecture and infrastructure were designed and carefully coordinated to ensure that future technology changes would not require extensive remodeling. These designs included:
Recommendation: Properly designed infrastructure has an exceedingly long half-life. Investing in adequate infrastructure during the construction project, in anticipation of technology changes, pays huge dividends in the long run.
In many ways, beginning the technology planning process in a construction project is much like leaping into an abyss: as you descend, it gets colder and darker, with fewer options for escape. Likewise, following the typical design and construction planning process often results in implementing technologies with no clear link to teaching goals, which means technologies go unused.
The McIntire School of Commerce project used the tools we have described to control costs, manage system delivery, and purchase products, all within a mission-driven strategic framework. Through a combination of hard work, staff expertise, commitment, and common sense, campuses can target their learning space design and technology investments to match their functional and strategic needs â€” and still maintain strict budget and schedule goals.
Â© 2009 Bryan Lewis and Gerald Starsia. The text of this article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 license.