TECHNOS

February 9, 2012

TECHNOS QUARTERLY Summer 1993 Vol. 2 No. 2

Partnering: Myths and Realities

By Ray L. Steele

Individuals often talk and write about new and creative project strategies, conceptual approaches to corporate-education deal making and magical partnerships… those partnerships with mystical “freebies” for education and no expectations from altruistic corporations… the kind of partnerships that are a bit hard to find in operation. If forging a partnership were so easy, so predictable a process, why, then, are almost 16,000 school districts and about 3,300 higher education institutions without one? They could and should be in important three-way partnerships among modern schools, ambitious communities, and aggressive employers competing in the most challenging times that most of the U.S. population has ever known. Education would be much better than it is and our cumulative future more secure. Such partnerships are not impossible, but they also are not easy.

Pursuing Positive Change

While most of what follows can be applied to education, K–G (kindergarten-graduate) in general, some sensitivity for the limits in understanding K–12 problems should be addressed early on, due to the renewed attention K–12 has received in the 1990s.

Technology is a tool and nothing more. It is not an end, just a means for students and teachers to help improve the teaching-learning process. Curriculum is another issue, and when the two are inextricably intertwined in a project initially, the conflict that often follows compromises major technological improvement efforts. Partnerships must be clear in terms of their purpose and goals. Simple is always best.

Although universities and school districts must be sensitive to community and corporate interests and needs in the area of curriculum reform, the academics at whatever level must be allowed to lead the process of changing the curriculum. Using a technology project as the bait for curriculum shift usually compromises the acceptance of the technology. It surely minimizes the likelihood of the completion of a major system.

There can be no doubt in 1993, for the informed, that we are in the Information Age. We have reached some broadly acceptable conclusions about our society, and the implications for improving education and for implementing technology partnerships are somewhat easier to connect with than they were 10 years ago.

We are living in a time of global competition in which any U.S. leadership in any field, including education, is subject to challenge. Quality and updated education and training are both critical to a competitive work force. We cannot compete for long without replenishing our work force. With the baby boomers wishing to enjoy retirement in the next decade, the work force is about to be depleted, with some of the most educated leading the way into early retirement. These same retirees are also those taxpayers least likely to wish to bear any cuts in Social Security in response to deficit reduction plans. They are also unlikely to support willingly local tax hikes for education reform as they jealously guard their fixed-income-based retirement lifestyles.

The context of the world in which most of these potential retirees have succeeded is technology rich. They can understand how expensive it is to train new workers in the very basic tools of the workplace, especially if these youngsters come from K–G environments that are not information equipped. The most basic argument for using partnerships in pursuing positive change in education may be that we actually can save money, in the long term, in the creation of a modern work force for a globally competitive economy. We can invest now in creating Information Age environments in which we educate and train that work force for the 1990s.

Too much time today is spent on teaching basics of common technology in the workplace, when instead it should be a common part of the tools within the learning environment that teachers and students take for granted. The latter situation would lead to a more modernized marketplace where more new employees demand that the businesses where they work modernize in order to compete. Positive change would result, not endless arguments over curriculum change, which compromises context modernization. Curriculum change is important, but it is a different venue.

Essentials of Effective Partnerships

Win-Win Situations. After almost a quarter century in education, I have found few successful education entities or businesses that were driven by pure altruism. All successful partnerships must be founded in mutual interest and mutual benefit. Neither side is as good as it should be in understanding the needs of the other, in my opinion. Both are often trapped by frozen evaluations, outdated perceptions, and artificial limitations on their relationships. If we do not set the realistic limits of any relationship between business and education—and if we cannot articulate with some persuasiveness the overall social arguments that K–12 superintendents, campus presidents, and senior company officials should publicly recognize to be of mutual interest—there is no foundation to begin the creation of a partnership. This is one area often taken for granted, and it is an omission that often creates the basis for failure in education/corporate partnerships.
Fearless Leaders. Leadership of both the education and the corporate entity must be involved at the beginning when the basic goals are established for the partnership. This is not a function easily delegated early. Once the basic goals are accepted, there is a perceived reference point with some authority that can be used by those delegated the project leadership role in order to discipline the project as it proceeds. The typical problem is that a general goal for a partnership must be evolved into specific actions leading to one outcome that is good for the whole, not just for a few special interests. These local interests will work tirelessly and naturally, within any bureaucracy, to pursue their own more limited agenda. Without the benefit of leadership's acceptance of the overall goal, there is no discipline possible to keep the whole project on track. As a consultant creating partnerships, I know the first sign of failure is leadership's reluctance to be involved early on. Unit heads will interpret this reluctance as a signal of business as usual, and the partnership on either side will be compromised to just that. A relationship of trust and a comfort zone that can be publicly shown between the partners and the consultant are critical to progress in partnership projects.
Risk Takers. The ultimate function of the consultant at this point is to assure both sides at the leadership level that the ultimate goal will be pursued stubbornly and that neither side will be treated unfairly once the project goes into each side's organizational structure. “All oxen gored equally” is the rule. The consultant may be an insider from one of the institutions in the partnership. He or she must be sufficiently protected—in other words, hold a tenured professorship or have the promise of a new assignment at project's end—in order to avoid self-protective compromises when the project gets to the pressure points. The consultant must also have technology knowledge for credibility and human interpersonal and negotiation skills to keep the process moving. Having done these projects from inside my own organization twice in the 1980s and numerous times from my company position as outside consultant, I know that it costs the partner more in dollars to do it from the outside. But I also know it is inestimably easier to succeed. For, no matter who you are as an insider, you must be willing to play “you bet your job” at some point, if you are to succeed. At least, those who may oppose the inevitable change brought to the system by the partnership must believe that you are taking the risk, if you are to move them. Generally, they will not bet their jobs; therefore, change may be accepted only grudgingly as an alternative.
Flexibility, Responsibility, Commitment. Another essential of effective partnerships is the willingness to operate flexibly while being faced with ambiguity in the partnership project. These education/corporate partnerships are not done as business as usual. Progress is uneven and processes are changed sometimes just to break mind-sets that do not allow for creative new solutions. Not everything attempted works on the first try, and not everything is reduced to one actionable contract that will please legal counsel, at least early on.

Each partner must be willing to bring those resources most appropriate to each organization to the table. Both inevitably will have some financial resources involved. The telephone or computer company, for instance, must realize that its technical and installation resources as well as equipment are critical. The education institution often has people, time, and some expertise available, as well as an environment in which testing, experimentation, and training may be of value. Each side will find some resistance to any shift in current resources, including the resource of time. The most common problem with “showcase” partnerships is that people within a company are not used to doing the extras in a project to make it a showcase. In addition, people within the education institution are the first to want to restrict access to the completed showcase because of its impact on their time. If the partnership is to benefit either, neither can be allowed to compromise the commitment. A public commitment, up front, helps to forestall this problem.
Plans for the Long Term. The last essential is, perhaps, the hardest reality partnerships must face. Even though it impacts each side's resources, the partnership project must be done at a sufficient size to create critical mass. In addition, financial choices must be determined by long-term value, not short-term savings. It matters little what it costs if it does not work.

Users are the key to any technology partnership's success—in education or in any institution. A mere “classroom of the future” approach basically is faulted in the beginning because it lacks real impact beyond a single experiment or a narrow group of limited-interest users. But a “system”—or “campus of the future”—approach impacts and involves many, if not most, potential users. Its critical mass suggests a long-term commitment to change the education environment, which causes a number of individual users to participate. Change becomes more worthwhile to them.

Every technology project partnership takes longer than it should and costs more than anyone hopes it will. Therefore, if early choices in equipment levels or functionality are made for short-term cost savings, by the time you finish and begin to showcase the project, you simply will be showcasing your shortsightedness. The partnership rule for long-term benefit is: Invest up front and achieve full return as a good showcase partnership.

Partnership Pitfalls

Habit is, perhaps, our worst enemy as we pursue opportunities in a time of rapid change. Business as “unusual” and critical questioning of current practice may be at the heart of success for technology partnerships between corporate and education entities. At the heart of failure are a few easily avoided pitfalls.

Neglecting to Check the Law. Some organizations do not challenge or check when their business or legal counsel note that they cannot change current practice in doing special partnerships. In my experience, however, most rules have been self-imposed and often restrict projects. State laws related to telecommunications projects vary and provide interesting options that are easily overlooked by “business as usual” advice. Two of my most successful partnerships were nearly killed when restrictions were assumed to be in effect. When the law was checked, it was discovered that local counsel was operating from an unduly narrow perspective and was not current on the full use of available legal options.
Avoidance of Risk. Most organizations operate from convenience of time, habit, and risk-aversion perspectives. It is often easier to note what cannot be done or what is cost prohibitive than to research alternatives that must be explained. Every time this happens, students and faculty stand to lose opportunities. A good example is the practice of using spec bids—or bids made to specifications, which essentially detail all the components of a project—as opposed to using performance bids, which detail the results that must be accomplished.

Complex technology projects occur infrequently, involve constantly changing technology, and therefore are much harder to do on a precise spec bid—no matter how capable in technology you think you are when you write the spec. The vendors know their products; even if they could do more for your project for the same or less cost, they respond to a spec bid as it was written. In a good partnership, a performance bid allows for a well-articulated outcome to be met flexibly. It requires expertise-based judgment in comparing responses. And it often means that the lowest and best—and not just low—price is selected. When a bid process is not required, a performance contract insures that both parties in the partnership work to meet overall project goals, rather than argue about change orders.
Failure to Dream. As they begin, few partnerships trade enough on the real economic development possibilities for communities and thereby fail to broaden the potential local resource partnership base. Technology modernization projects such as the partnerships at Ball State University or Westfield Washington School Corporation, both in Indiana, had documentable, positive, local results. At Ball State, the result was new and better applicants to campus. In Westfield, the result was a changed perception of the value of living in the community. These are concrete, long-term benefits, and they have real economic implications rarely argued or understood as partnerships evolve. Ask realtors in a community what often drives a new resident's housing decision. Whether the homebuyer has children or not, the existence of modern, successful schools or campuses has an impact on the decision to purchase in a particular community. Resale values also are affected. In turn, the tax base and economic opportunities are improved. Allowing uninformed and overly conservative judgment in a community to go unchallenged when it defeats creative education/corporate partnership possibilities inevitably diminishes education improvement opportunities. It impacts on school and community self-concept, and that translates to image. Outside perceptions of the community become negative, which minimizes economic development opportunities. The goal would better be: Every community a model, and every school or campus involved in a partnership. Dreaming tends to bring out the best in people. Often what appear to be impossible dreams are not impossible at all.

Of course, partnerships must be based on some realistic parameters. Dreaming and risk today cannot be limitless. Economic realities must be understood relatively. Goals can be achieved over time, as long as a commitment to a long-term project of real merit is in place. It is always better to set one ambitious goal early and achieve a significant portion of it at first than to be so conservative in your dream as to fail to attract local support or partners of substance.
Expecting a Free Lunch. Some partners are not worth having because they can bring little to the table. An example is third-party providers versus manufacturers of technology. All the former usually can provide is reduced margins due to the nature of their business. Also, partnerships do not just mean “freebies” for education. Remember the mutual benefit issue. I have seen education institutions take significant generosity from a corporate partner, then turn around and give competitors of this generous partner basic business without regard for overall quality or system-related interests. That is self-defeating and all too typical of petty bureaucrats with short-term heroics in mind rather than long-term system advantages. It is not a matter of favoritism. Corporate partners must factor in the cost of attending to deal making and system change, as well as immediate economics, when they make the decision to become involved in a partnership. These things often change the bottom line.

That Winning Attitude

The primary lesson I have learned from doing partnerships for the last decade is this: The objective of every project, if you have enough experience to understand how much you do not know, should be a “partnership attitude.” That means the education institution and the vendor or partner on a technology project consciously work together from the same side of the table to solve project problems. What often happens is that they sit opposite each other and, instead of fighting the problem, fight each other. I have seen educators take pride in kicking their vendor around, and I have then seen the vendor cause the education entity to spend more for less during a miserable relationship. Win-win partnership attitudes are eminently more fun, more productive, more beneficial to users, and more profitable. Whether economic-development based, showcase based, or simply vendor-product-provision based, the creation of a partnership attitude may be the most beneficial lesson I can share. It has served my clients and employers well when used, and I have always realized a greater return on my efforts when it resulted.

See also Richard H. de Lone's “The Business Leader's Guide to Partnerships for Education Reform: A Strategic Perspective” (1992) from Public/Private Ventures, 399 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19106.—Editor's note

Founding director of the Center for Information and Communication Sciences at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana, Ray Steele spearheaded Ball State's Teaching Environment Model Campus of the Future. One of his consulting firms, Steele and Associates, created the first comprehensive K–12 partnership project for Penn Harris Madison School Corporation in Mishawaka, Indiana, in 1987. His most recent project in Westfield, Indiana, features fiber optics to support interactive educational technologies in that community's schools.

Click here to access The Context Sidebar that accompanied this article.