The educational potential of computer technology will not be realized until schools successfully incorporate the technology into their daily activities. Often, the group encouraging the new technology is a third party with no direct control over the user group. The authors combined the literature on implementing new information systems and implementing educational innovations with the findings of a case study to produce five guidelines for such third parties. The guidelines recommend five major activities for groups involved in implementing new technology in an educational setting: understand resistance, educate and communicate, encourage positive attitudes, introduce change consistent with the environment, and encourage and support champions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LewisP. H., Forecast For the 21st Century, New York Times, January 8, 1989.
2.
PapertS., Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas, Basic Books Inc., New York, 1980.
3.
TornatzkyL. B., The Process of Technological Innovation: Reviewing the Literature, a NSF Study, 1983.
4.
BermanP. and McLaughlinM. W., Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change, Vol. I: A Model of Educational Change, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California, R-1589/1-HEW, 1974.
5.
CochD. and BroveyD. J., Overcoming Resistance to Change, Human Relations, 1: 4, pp. 512–533, 1948.
6.
KotterJ. P. and SchlesingerL. A., Choosing Strategies for Change, Harvard Business Review, 57: 2, pp. 106–113, 1979.
7.
ArgyrisC., Resistance to Rational Management Systems, Innovation, 10, pp. 29–34, 1970.
8.
MarkusL. M., Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation, Communications of the ACM, 26: 6, pp. 430–444, 1983.
9.
BronsemaG. S. and KeenP. G. W., Education Intervention and Implementation in MIS, Sloan Management Review, 24: 4, pp. 35–43, 1983.
10.
ChenD. and BroveyD. J., Information Technology and the Educational System: I. Implementation for Organizational Development, Technical Report No. 10, Tel-Aviv University (Israel): Computers in Education Research Lab, IR 014 112, 1985.
11.
FullanM. and PomfretA., Research on Curriculum and Instruction Implementation, Review of Educational Research, 47: 1, pp. 335–397, 1977.
12.
RoseS. N., Barriers to the Use of Educational Technologies and Recommendations to Promote and Increase Their Use, Educational Technology, 12: 12, pp. 12–15, 1982.
13.
SorensenR. E. and ZandD. E., Improving the Implementation of OR/MS Models by Applying the Lewin-Schein Theory of Change, in Implementing Operations Research/Management Science, SchultzR. L. and SlevinD. P. (eds.), American Elsevier Publishing Company Inc., New York, pp. 217–235, 1975.
14.
LucasH., Why Information Systems Fail, Columbia University Press, New York, 1975.
15.
LucasH., Empirical Evidence for a Descriptive Model of Implementation, MIS Quarterly, 20: 2, pp. 27–41, 1978.
16.
KeenP. G. W., Information Systems and Organizational Change, Communications of the ACM, 24: 1, pp. 24–33, 1981.
17.
RobeyD., User Attitudes and Management Information System Use, Academy of Management Journal, 22: 3, pp. 527–538, 1979.
18.
RobeyD. and ZellerR. F., Factors Affecting the Success and Failure of an Information System for Product Quality, Interfaces, 8: 2, pp. 70–78, 1978.
19.
LorschJ., Managing Change, Part II: Designing Effective Change Strategies, No. 9-476-103 Harvard Business School Case Services, Boston, Massachusetts, 1976.
20.
HowellJ. M. and HigginsC. A., “Personality Characteristics, Leader Behaviors, and Influence Strategies of Champions of Technological Innovations,” Working paper, School of Business Administration, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada, 1989.
21.
MeredithJ., Strategic Planning for Factory Automation by the Championing Process, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 23: 4, pp. 229–232, 1986.
22.
SchonD. A., Champions for Radical New Inventions, Harvard Business Review, 41: 2, pp. 77–86, 1963.
