Needs Assessment

Rationale:

In his book on planning, Roger Kaufman(2000) provides some “new realities” for organizational success that I reproduce here that they may inspire us towards the terrain we’ve not yet mapped. These are:

  • Tomorrow is not a linear projection of yesterday.
  • You can’t solve today’s problems with the same paradigms and tools that created them.
  • Reality is not subdivided into disciplines, courses, departments, sections, agencies, laws, policies, or issues.
  • Useful change has to add value for all internal and external partners.
  • Ask, “If my organization is the solution, what’s the problem?”
  • There are two “bottom lines” for any organization: conventional and societal.
  • Doing societal good is no longer an option, it is a must (Popcorn, 1991).
  • If you can’t predict the future, create it. (Drucker, 1993 – I like this one a lot)
  • Think globally as you act locally.
  • Operate as if you intend to put your organization out of business through success.
  • Don’t be the best of the best – be the only one who does what you do (attributed to Jerry Garcia)
  • It is easier to kill an organization than it is to change it (Peters, 1997).

If we do a good Needs Assessment, then we start from square one questioning old paradigms and not accepting tomorrow as a basic linear equation of what we have done in the past. And if we look outside ourselves, to ask what we ultimately benefit to society, we can identify valuable partnerships and create a future in which our profession provides value-added to the world. In my opinion, any profession should do no less.

While this document is merely a plan for a Needs Assessment and not an actual strategic plan, the rationale adopted should reflect what we want a strategic plan to really look like. If we want to confirm what we already know, if we want our data to merely confirm our old paradigms, then we can design the assessment that way and the plan will be no more creative than the data we feed into it. Thus, the rationale for my suggestion is a Needs Assessment that questions even our paradigms. I know I won’t catch and question everything on my own, so I trust to the group process that we have inspired each other enough to question and to be creative such that we really do build and Ideal Vision and a solid plan for getting there.

Plan for Needs Assessment:

These are taken directly from Kaufman, again, as a way of suggesting a model to stick to. Kaufman suggests nine steps that I’ll elaborate on to relate directly to AECT’s process.

Step 1: Decide to plan using data from a needs (not a “wants”) assessment.

This requires agreement from all partners. In this case, we need the Board, officers and membership agreeing that we want a data-driven process. If any partner is not committed to it at this level, then there is really no point in proceeding since a vital partner is unlikely to adhere to any decisions.

Step 2: Identify the three needs assessment (and planning) levels to be included – Mega, Macro, and Micro – and commit to needs assessment (and planning) that starts at the Mega level.

Mega (Outcomes): Kaufman depicts this in his Organizational Elements Model (OEM), and I’ll just summarize here. At the Mega level, we ask what are the results and consequences of what we do on society. We begin by asking what those results and consequences SHOULD be, and compare that to what they are now. Do we want students to graduate able to provide for themselves? Do we want technology to have a positive impact upon people’s abilities to perform in learning and work situations? Do we want to ensure that technologies does not negatively impact people’s jobs or the environment? If so, what does this mean? Should we promote the best in what is known about brain research (since learning is changing the brain at a fundamental level)? Should we define best practices in the use of technology for learning? Etc. etc. Only when we know the answers to those sorts of questions can we drill down into our own organization to determine what structure, activities and products will best meet such ends.

Macro (Outputs): The results an organization can or does deliver outside itself. This is not what our impact is on society but what we produce and deliver to others outside the organization. Right now, we might say that we provide “vita building” opportunities. What do we deliver to those we serve? This is a question of membership – what does membership in AECT mean to members. What should it mean? What do we do for them (not, what do they do for us)? This is also a question of other relationships to other external clients. What do we provide to the partnerships we listed elsewhere (government, health industry, military, K-12, higher education, parents and families, etc.)? Do we provide them anything they can use or that makes a difference in their lives?

Micro (products): What do we produce that leads us to the desired outputs and desired outcomes? Certified graduates? Learning objects that people can use? Resources for different sectors? Knowledge that improves processes and performance? And what form do those take, and are those effective forms for achieve desired outputs and outcomes? In other words, following up on a question buzzing around more and more – are journals enough for impacting general society? What are we going to produce such that we can deliver as we desire?

All three are equally critical, although it is the Mega level that will set us apart and provide us the creative vision for long-term viability.

Step 3: Identify the Needs Assessment and Planning Partners.

Change literature has demonstrated this point as practically a maxim of success. All stakeholders MUST be involved, from the first step forward, if change is to occur. Affected parties should be involved (Rogers, 1995; Ely, 1990; Ellsworth, 1995; Banathy, 1994).

There are three general groups:

  1. Implementers (that would be AECT Board, officers, etc.)
  2. Recipients (members, possible partners, other agencies, etc.)
  3. Community and society

For the actual NA process, these should be better defined and tapped or representatives asked to serve or respond.

Step 4: Obtain the participation of your needs assessment (and planning) partners.

Ely is so wise. This is one of his conditions for change as well (I love the convergence Change literature has achieved).

Once we have identified partners, we need to get them to participate in the process. Contact them and arrange meetings.

Step 5: Obtain acceptance of the needs assessment (and planning) frame of reference as Mega.

Once everyone has been contacted and brought together, the first step is to ensure everyone’s commitment to Mega. If a partner is not willing to commit to ultimate benefit to society, then we should seriously reconsider the partnership. This step may involve educating partners on Needs Assessment, as well as the difference between means and ends. It may involve reminding ourselves of the difference between means and ends and constantly reminding ourselves of the focus on ends rather than means.

Step 6: Collect both internal and external needs data.

Internal needs data concern performance discrepancies within an organization:

Need both hard and soft (quantitative data AND perceptions)

FILL IN THE BLANK HERE … this is the space where we need definition as to how we will collect such data

I think we’re doing good on the “soft” data and should develop that such that we gather useful data. Suggestions on indicators that yield hard data are:

  • # or % of accredited programs
  • trends in membership over the years and alignment of those trends with changes or events
  • # of complaints to ethics committee
  • profit or financial benefits to external customers (partners or members)
  • measure of social standing or membership desirability (do people value AECT, recognize it, or desire to be a part of it)
  • ______
  • ______
  • ______
  • etc.

External needs data concern performance discrepancies of clients and the shared world:

This may be harder for us to determine because the questions are so new and we may not have good indicators. On the other hand, we may have exactly the indicators we need:

  • Ratings from external sources (federal government, etc.)
  • Service to government committees, etc. (Steve Ross serves on a DC panel – who else does?)
  • Trends of funding of ed-tech related initiatives over the past decade (or so)
  • Deaths resulting from computer pollution
  • Quality of life indicators that can be linked to technology
  • ______
  • ______
  • ______
  • etc.

Step 7: List identified, documented, and agreed-on needs.

Once the data is collected and analyzed, we create a list of those needs that exist and for which we can say we have proof, and that the partners agree on as an important need.

Step 8: Place needs in priority order (based on the costs to meet and not meet the needs), place in priority order and reconcile differences.

By following Step 7, we assure that what we have in Step 8 are choices based on data, not on individual preference, bias or influence.

Provide each partner with a list of needs they must prioritize. Weighting criteria should be developed where appropriate. For example, costs for reducing or eliminating a need should be weighed against the costs for ignoring it. (In other words, a costs-consequences analysis for determining priorities.)

Step 9: List problems (selected needs) to be resolved and obtain agreement of the partners.

This will be constrained by budget/resources, and should be – realistically so. But I imagine this will also involve some creativity: what may we address by what we already have, what may we address by what we could pursue (grants, profit-generating activities, etc.), what may we address by way of strategic partnerships?

*************************************

Roger provides possible management tools in his text that can be used for managing the needs assessment process. This include steps for Mega, Macro and Micro level processes, with a spot for date assigned and date completed. That may help the person’s ultimately responsible keep track of what should be completed and when it has been completed. He also has tools for measuring gaps that we may use, such as gaps in whether we’re even open, as an organization, for conducting an effective needs assessment. I’ll work to get some of those posted for examples that could be modified to suit our needs – to get people’s minds jogging.