Open Options | Implementation

Wise spending
Beyond deployment
Leveraging the community
Flexibility

Wise spending

The sale price is not the total cost.

There are shrewd ways to spend money and other resources to integrate technology. Some companies offer comprehensive packages and such "single cost" solutions may be attractive. If proprietary software companies continue to move toward subscription licensing, schools will face a choice between leasing solutions or building their own capacity. Schools should look for ways to minimize purchase costs using existing expertise, infrastructure, and other resources. For example, older computers may not need to be upgraded if they can still meet some needs. The cost of retraining support staff and users may not be worth the advantages of newer solutions.

Try to choose the best solutions because they may not be replaced for years.

Open source has immediate, visible cost savings since it's free to install. These savings may initially compel stakeholders to consider open source solutions, but the discussion needs to expand to total cost of ownership (TCO). Even where open source may reduce TCO, it won't eliminate all costs. Open source is not "magic pixie dust." Migration may be very expensive. However, schools may want more independence and flexibility. With open source, schools can invest in capacity rather than software licenses.

Would you rather buy certainty or invest in capacity?
Are you struggling with budget limitations?

[back to top]

Beyond deployment

Deployment is only the beginning.

Integration requires more than deploying hardware and software. Leadership and communication are essential throughout the process. Users and other stakeholders need to understand why change is occurring and how hardships will be mitigated. Set timelines and celebrate milestones.

Technology without training and user comfort is wasteful and may be worse than no technology at all.
Think about replacement because it won't last forever (even without Murphy's Law).

Training, acclimation, and integration take extra time and other resources. With open source or proprietary solutions, the critical factor is support. Technology without sufficient support may be worse than no technology. Too many schools are filled with unused technology because it's not well supported or users don't have enough training and comfort.

Can you afford training?
Can you maintain or build capacity for support?

Will your needs and goals compel stakeholders to endure hardships and acclimate to new solutions?
Can you risk depending on the open source community for help or do you need more certainty?

[back to top]

Leveraging the community

Schools can leverage the experience & models of others.

Schools shouldn't start from scratch. Similiar problems have similiar solutions, so schools can learn from current users and adapt existing models and resources. The best solutions are usually found elsewhere in K-12, since schools have different needs, goals, and resources than business or government. For examples, schools can depend more on volunteers and most licenses favor nonprofits like schools.

One of the most attractive advantages of open source is the user community, especially the thriving subpopulation of educators. The community offers powerful free support through email lists and Web sites. Current users generally depend on this community for learning and troubleshooting, and commend the speed, tone, and effectiveness of the help. The nature of open source means users can offer more help to each other, including customized distributions (e.g. K12LTSP) and sophisticated scripts and tools. If a school does migrate to open source, some stakeholders will take advantage of the community. Most users will depend on staff in the building.

Open source fosters experimentation and customization, so schools can pick and choose. And while robust solutions like Linux, Apache, and OpenOffice.org are created for business and government, schools can enjoy the windfall of such software's free, unlimited distribution and thriving user communitiy. Of course, some staff will be more or less willing or able to participate in the community and ask for help. However, by deploying customized, modular solutions and training (or retraining) staff, schools invest in their own capacity rather than just the success of software companies. (This is a significant reason why some countries are choosing open source.)

Are you willing and able to search for solutions rather than buy them?
Will your technology staff be willing and able to get help from the community?

Will your advanced users be willing and able to help other users?
If you lose an important staff member, will you have a backup? Or does your technology infrastructure stop functioning?

[back to top]

Flexibility

Be flexible.

Flexibility is valuble when managing present and future change. Where possible, schools should choose open formats, modular solutions, and commodity software. If a school becomes dependent on a specific, inflexible proprietary solution, change can be forced on the school by software companies.

Lock in, forced upgrades, and end-of-life are a real hazards.

To mitigate the hardships of change, schools should look to low threshold solutions. Changes to servers may be invisible to most users. It may be easier to experiment with one computer lab than with the computers in a dozen classrooms. Current users recommend having at least one test machine for trying any new software, open source or proprietary, before depending on a new solution.

Schools may need to offer some backward support after any migration. Some users or data may be locked into a specific solution. Schools shouldn't abandon good teachers or content.

In some cases open source offers low threshold solutions for easy experimentation or gradual change. For example, OpenOffice.org can run on Microsoft Windows and supports Microsoft Office formats, so users can experiment when possible and still use Microsoft Office when necessary. Educators may discover that open source software like OpenOffice is more than adequate for most needs and goals (e.g. students working in a writing lab).

Open source offers some independence which may be attractive for those stakeholders who want more empowerment. Advanced users may enjoy the customization and user community of open source. The philosophical principles may be intriguing and attractive to stakeholders, but these will probably be minor criteria in the planning process. However, while identifying needs and goals stakeholders may express progessive education goals and/or bemoan pressure from proprietary companies (regarding licenses or upgrades). Then the principles are very relevant.

[back to top]

Open Options is a product of the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. These materials are in the public domain and may be reproduced without permission. The following acknowledgment is requested on materials which are reproduced: Developed by the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, Oregon.

This Web site was developed and maintained by the Northwest Educational Technology Consortium. The federal funding for the regional technology consortia program ended on September 30, 2005, and no further updates are planned unless additional funding becomes available. However, much of the content is still useful and NWREL will continue to provide access to this site to support educators and to meet its own technical assistance needs.