A public conversation: Steve Gilbert with Jane Marcus of Stanford about how the Fundamental Questions can be extended and applied to situations in which many people within an institution are feeling pressed to move from courses that are mostly campus-based toward courses that have more online elements - perhaps sooner and with less clarity of purpose than is comfortable.
We'll discuss a "case" on which we can use our emerging ideas to recommend a sequence of steps involving the Fundamental Questions, the important new procedural TLT Roundtable question: “Who should be at the table? Now? At the next stage of our planning and deliberations?” and ideas from Peter Keen's important and provocative article about Counter-Implementation Strategies - tlt.gs/counterimp . We don't require/expect a commitment about IMPLEMENTING our recommendations for this particular case , but it will help to have a real college or university in mind to shape our recommendations more realistically to meet the case’s described conditions.
Ref: “Information Systems and Organizational Change” Article by Peter G. W. Keen, May 1980, Communications of the ACM, January 1981, Vol 24, No. 1, pp. 24-33 pp. 27-28, 30-31.
We’ll describe the innovation that is being considered and then identify who the key players are who need to be at the table to be part of the project. We’ll ask participants to explain why they believe the “players” we identify as needing to be “brought to the table” are or are not essential, could be omitted, and those who might, in fact be missing.
We’ll examine the values that must/can be part of open, “public” discussion, as well as the values and other info that is likely to remain “private” or part of the “sub-text.”
We’ll consider how to elicit and build on the public statements of institutional [and less widely held and/or applicable] values for each of the representatives at the table as well as the private/personal/political goals of the various participants. The interplay between these two perspectives determines who serves as legitimate, loyal opposition or truly subversive "counter-implementers" during subsequent implementation.