Few technology purchasing decisions can be made without first understanding their costs, potential benefits, and impacts. Measured Approaches to New Technologies is issue #6 in the 2026 EDUCAUSE Top 10.
If you want to see the technology marketplace incubating and growing in real time, browse the GitHub repository and marvel at the sheer volume and velocity of the innovation happening there.
Indeed, the technology solutions market is ever-expanding, and institutions are inundated with new tools—especially AI-based ones—and new features for existing technologies. The constant influx can make the product landscape seem dizzying in its array of options.
Unfortunately, many institutions navigate this array through suboptimal decision-making processes that are deeply ingrained in their technology adoption culture, resulting in dissatisfaction and negative outcomes. Most technology leaders, for example, report that "quick-fix technology purchases" are common at their institution, putting strain on IT staff and decreasing interoperability and efficiency for users.Footnote1
In a higher education environment characterized by tighter budgets, understaffed technology teams, and overflowing workloads, institutions can no longer afford to be impulsive with their investments. ROI and ROV (return on value) are the guiding principles of the day, and few technology purchasing decisions can be made without first understanding their costs, potential benefits, and impacts. In other words, now more than ever, we must demonstrate value if we want buy-in for the technology decisions we make.
Some institutions may need to adopt a wait-and-see mindset when making purchasing decisions, especially in a volatile technology marketplace.Footnote2 Resisting a brand-new solution or feature today in favor of a more reliable and advanced "2.0" version tomorrow may make the most sense when funds are tight, as might conducting smaller pilots of solutions before making larger scaled-up, enterprise-level purchases.
Stronger and more consistent IT governance processes are needed to help teams navigate these complex decisions. A shared institution-wide understanding of the technology solutions already in place, the most pressing technology gaps and debts, and the resource demands and risks that come along with each technology implementation can help technology leaders find alignment and make decisions that best fit the realities of the overall capabilities and needs of their institution.
Campus Spotlight: Experimenting with New Tech on a Smaller Scale at Universidad de los Andes
After an initial investment in immersive technology devices and content production, the technology team at Universidad de los Andes in Colombia was uncertain whether the substantial cost of technology would be worth the benefits to the institution (or what the full range of benefits might be). Diego Leal, executive lead of the Digital Educational Laboratory, explained how they decided to start with smaller, more focused applications.
"We decided to take a measured approach using very tightly scoped experiments. We focused not only on student satisfaction or ergonomic factors or usability, but also on trying to understand the real value that the technology adds in our context. So far, we have collaborated with faculty members from the schools of health, law, and management in the design and deployment of these experiments. And we have found that it is easier to build a cost-benefit argument by identifying specific use cases that provide access to experiences aligned with learning outcomes and that students couldn't otherwise have, whether for practical or safety reasons.
"When you think about a big scope, solutions tend to be more generic, which makes it harder to demonstrate clear value. This experimental process has helped us articulate when and how immersive tech can add value in our context, what long-term use cases might look like, and what sustainability challenges emerge. From specific cases, we derive insights that support decisions across the university, using an approach that combines business experimentation, design thinking, educational research, tech exploration, and futures thinking."
Ways to Get Started
Through our panelist interviews and community survey, technology leaders noted some ways institutions might develop more measured approaches to technology purchasing decisions:
- Take stock of the technology debt and existing technology ecosystem at your institution before moving forward with substantial new purchases. The institution may not be using an existing system to its full potential, so you may be able to resolve an identified need without having to purchase an additional solution. Removing duplicative technologies and consolidating licenses can help simplify the technology ecosystem and make it easier to identify potential gaps or needs at the institution.
- Demand transparency and accountability from your solution partners and build this expectation into your contracts. Confidence and trust in technology purchasing decisions can be enriched by clear and reliable information from your partners, including clear cost information, details on solution integrations and interoperability, and product roadmaps for the future. The Higher Education Community Vendor Assessment Toolkit (HECVAT) is a valuable tool that your institution can use to more effectively vet solutions before making significant purchases.
Notes
- Mark McCormack, "EDUCAUSE QuickPoll Results: The Varied and Compounding Effects of Institutional Debt," EDUCAUSE Review, February 3, 2025. Jump back to footnote 1 in the text.
- Ethan Mollick, "The Lazy Tyranny of the Wait Calculation," One Useful Thing (blog), January 16, 2024 Jump back to footnote 2 in the text.
Didier Contis is Vice Provost for Information Technology and Chief Information Officer at University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Penny Evans-Plants is Chief Information Officer at Berry College.
Daniel Ewart is Vice President for Information Technology and Chief Information Officer at University of Idaho.
Olivia Kew-Fickus is Chief Data Officer at Vanderbilt University.
Diego Leal is Executive Lead of the Digital Educational Laboratory at Universidad de Los Andes.
© 2025 EDUCAUSE and the 2025–2026 EDUCAUSE Top 10 Panel. The text of this work is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 International License.