In the yearly technology plan, Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) commits to
the use of technology in support of its mission to prepare students to be responsible
citizens in this century. However, due to diminishing funds available for technology
as a result of shortfalls in government budgets, the ability for FCPS to provide
equipment to schools in an equitable manner has decreased. Therefore, schools
at the local level find alternatives to meet objectives. The elementary school
where I serve as the School-Based Technology Specialist is no exception. Through
our assistant principal, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) offered
a donation of 200 computers. Due to security concerns, the computers required
new hard drives and memory. The Chantilly Academy, which provides advanced
courses in technology to FCPS high school students, was contracted to install
the new hardware. To offset some of our hardware costs, we negotiated that
the Academy would retain 125 of the computers for resale. FCPS Transportation
Services were enlisted to handle the move from Washington D.C. to the Academy.
However, due to unforeseen events, I was faced with a decision to accept only
20 of the donated computers. The rationale of my decision was bounded by the
game playing of many players operating under different objectives, the manner
in which information flowed as it moved through the action channels, and the
use of established routines in a non-routine situation.
Game playing is likely to occur when different groups interact and negotiate
to achieve a common goal, while holding onto internal goals specific to the
group. In the case of the donated computers, the goals of the players influenced
the
way they played the game. The new assistant principal initially accepted the
maximum number of computers to build up his reputation within our district
cluster. In the process, he negotiated with two less affluent schools to
receive a portion
of the donated computers acquired by our school. FCPS Transportation Services
wanted to provide timely service without interfering with pre-scheduled work
orders and adding costs to department. They contracted with an outside agency
who would charge the Academy to perform the task. The Chantilly Academy sought
to maximize the number of repairable computers for their students and the resale
value of the computers they would receive. In their negotiations, they charged
us computers rather than dollars to offset costs of hardware and transportation.
The price attached to each computer was dependent upon the Academy’s
estimation of these costs. As each game was played and the real costs became
apparent, the
number of computers available to me dwindled. Therefore, my decision for accepting
a certain number of computers was constrained by the gaming that went on during
the negotiation process.
Working in conjunction with game playing to constrain decision-making
is the process by which information moves through the action channels.
Information
can be filtered or blocked within the action channels. Each player shares information
according to their perspectives and goals. In my case, the FBI, wanting to
quickly
dispose of computers, initially stated that the donations met our Pentium III
technology specifications. In actuality, 20 of the pieces of equipment were
servers, and the majority of the computers were Pentium II technology, which
required
more hardware to meet school specifications. Consequently more computers would
be retained by the Academy to cover the additional costs. The Academy was the
sole player in the action channel who dealt with pricing and evaluating the
donations. Without a secondary source to confirm the Academy’s fee per
computer, our school was limited to accepting the information provided by the
Academy. In both
of these examples, the filtering of information by the action channels to achieve
organizational objectives constrained my decision as to how many computers
I was able to choose.
When an action channel is closed off by a player during negotiations,
information is blocked, causing alternatives to be unknown. The assistant
principal, without
consulting the technology group, accepted the donations before confirming the
nature of the equipment. Had the information been shared with the technology
group, certain questions about the computer specifications would have been
asked prior to acceptance. Consequently, it wasn’t known upfront that
more than half of the computers did not meet the requirements for our computer
laboratory.
It appears that the proper information in the hands of the appropriate group
would lessen the chances that something unforeseen would happen. In my view,
action channels to those with appropriate expertise and motivation were not
open. In addition to information filtering, closed action channels decreased
the knowledge
available and limited my ability to have many choices in the donation decision.
Bounded rationality also occurs when a non-routine event is treated as
routine. Schools generally are not in the habit of receiving large
quantities of computers,
an event that requires the service of county transportation. Transportation
Services did not have protocols for providing service into Washington D.C.
or for interacting
with the FBI’s security procedures. Without routines in place, Transportation
Services bypassed regular bidding procedures and contracted the first available
moving company that met FBI security requirements. Unfortunately, the costs
of the move were much higher than anticipated, adding to the fee per computer
charged
by the Academy. In another example, the FBI saw the situation as a routine
disposal, which involved cracking the computer case to remove the hard drive
and memory.
Consequently, this routine made 100 of the computers unfit for school use.
Applying normal routines to a non-routine situation in this case caused the
fee per computer
to rise as well as making fewer computers available for donation.
Upon analysis of the decision that I made to accept a fewer number
of substandard computer equipment, my rationale was bounded by the
concepts of game playing
associated with negotiating among groups with varying goals, filtering and
blocking of certain information about the donations and the acquisition process,
and applying
routines in a non-routine environment. An understanding of these concepts
and how different groups within an organization might react can guide
the leader
toward a more accurate view of the situation. Awareness allows the leader
to gather more information, to establish protocols where none exist,
and to be
more involved in the negotiations across the board. In this way the leader
may be
able to have less unforeseen events occur, more alternatives from which to
choose, and therefore, have less constraints placed on the decision.
|
