Editing Talk:Longterm Tech Plan BJ 5-9-24 draft

== 3-way group email discussing draft long range plan, May 2024 ==

=== John Sturges <sturges.johns@gmail.com> ===
May 12, 2024, 5:04 PM<br>
Bruce
Thanks for sharing, it’s my first opportunity to see a draft. I’m not offering any proofreading comments.
* Should technology goals include improved software and pro activity in efficiencies (e.g., redundancies, access, staff interface)?
* Should our technology goals include making Windrows more attractive technologically to potential younger residents?
* Is our role limited to awareness and literacy (are we sufficiently serving the board with such restrictions?)?
* Should project selection criteria include increased service to residents (this is expansive, not just benefits or cost)?
* Should guiding principles include shifting input burden and control from staff to residents?
* My overall concern is the plan is too process and task focused rather than strategic focused.
John

=== Robbie McClintock <robbie@aplacetostudy.org> ===
May 13, 2024, 10:07 AM<br>
Hi Bruce, John, et al,<br>
My thanks to you for the draft. John's 5 questions are right on, especially the last 2, and his closing concern is essential. Our resources, human and material are limited, and the draft plan will spread them very thin. /Robbie

=== Bruce Jeffries-Fox ===
May 13, 2024, 10:44 AM<br>
Hi John, Many excellent ideas!   Thanks.   This is going to take some real work, as I’ve received many good comments already and some are pretty substantive.   In particular we need to settle on the balance between substance and process.   I had looked at this as primarily process, but most comments, including yours, suggest we need more actual content related to projects.   That’s a fine discussion to have, I look forward to it.

=== Bruce with further comments from John ===
May 21, 2024<br>
;JS — Should technology goals include improved software and pro activity in efficiencies (e.g., redundancies, access, staff interface)?
:BJF — ’ve some idea of what you mean here but could use clarification.   Are you saying one of our goals should be to periodically review all software being used by Windrows to ensure it is the best software available to do the job?   And also, to do this periodic review to avoid redundancies in operations?  I think so; please confirm.   If that’s what you mean, the answer clearly is yes, this should be a goal. ✅YES
::I’m less clear what you mean by “access” and “staff interface”.  Can you give me examples?  Thanks
::JS — ✅RESIDENTS CAN’T EASILY UPDATE, REDUNDANT DATA ENTRY IN MULTIPLE SOFTWARE, APP VS ONLINE SYSTEM DIFFERENCES
;JS — Should our technology goals include making Windrows more attractive technologically to potential younger residents?
:BJF — Definitely.   This plan needs to sync up with and support Windrows’ strategic and business plans.  Part of those is to try and attract younger residents.
;JS — Is our role limited to awareness and literacy (are we sufficiently serving the board with such restrictions?)?
:BJF — Definitely not.   At the very least our role is to pursue the 4 areas we have discussed  (education; assistance; operations; ad hoc projects—see attached).  There may well be others…although they’ve not been identified yet.  What do you have in mind?✅ NEED FOR PROACTIVITY, CHANGES, INTEGRATION OF SYSTEMS, AWARENESS OF BETTER VENDORS, LOOK TO MAKE STAFF MORE EFFICIENT
;JS — Should project selection criteria include increased service to residents (this is expansive, not just benefits or cost)?
:BJF — Not clear what you mean.  It does address benefits to residents.  How is “service to residents’” different? ✅ OFFER NEW TECH CAPABILITIES, NOT JUST EXISTING SERVICES
;JS — Should guiding principles include shifting input burden and control from staff to residents?
:BJF — This is something we need to discuss in detail.   I know both you and Robbie feel strongly about this.   At this early point in discussion my view is that in some areas, we definitely SHOULD put the burden on residents (e.g. filling out their profiles).   But even here, I think we have a role to facilitate their stepping-up.  We need to make it fun/rewarding/fulfilling/easy, not to mention be the ones to draw attention to the project to begin with.
:: In other areas, right now, without having heard arguments, I don’t think it’s a good idea to put the burden on residents.   For example, any activity or service that…
::• needs to be performed or made available day in and day out, rain or shine, or
::• needs specialized knowledge, or
::• is central to the culture or functioning of Windrows
::… Should NOT be the responsibility of residents.   It should be the responsibility of paid Management/staff and/or consultants.
:: Basically, Windrows is a going-concern which will last longer than its residents’ lifetimes.  We should not trust key aspects of its management to aging volunteers.
:: Again, I’m quite open to debating this and hearing all views. ✅ MANY RESIDENTS ARE QUITE FACILE IN BASIC TECHNOLOGIES AND MANY ABLE TO LEARN ESPECIALLY IF IT MAKES LIFE EASIER AND MORE EFFICIENT. SELF SERVICE, NOT EXCHANGING VOLUNTEERS FOR STAFF.  EXAMPLES INCLUDES IPAD INSTEAD OF RED BOOK, KEYPADS IN EVERY RESIDENCE, ONLINE ORDERING OF MEALS, TRANSPORTATION, ROOM RESERVATION. NEED ONLINE INPUT AND ACCESS TO BIOS, PHOTOS, ETC. RESIDENTS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT COST REDUCTIONS OR AT LEAST CONTAINMENT. KIOSKS MAY BE AN ANSWER (WHY DOES A CULINARY SUPERVISOR NEED TO BE AT DIN ROOM DESK MIDDAY).
;JS — My overall concern is the plan is too process and task focused rather than strategic focused.
:BJF — OK.  I think we need to debate what this document is and isn’t.
:: We should definitely include more strategic statements such as you suggest.  We’ll get on with that, and thanks for pointing to the need.
:: But also we should discuss the process/tactical content.   My current view is that this document should be quite detailed in these areas so that it presents a plan that lasts longer than membership on the Tech Committee, or my tenure as chairperson, or even our current residents’ lifetimes.  It should provide a framework that can guide us for years (recognizing that it will always need updating as we go along).  Personally, I’d like it to get even more tactical:  include as Appendices project plans for current key projects. 
:: Finally, I feel strongly that this plan not just be a committee workplan.   It is for all of Windrows and as such should be jointly developed by us, Tom’s staff, and the Board; and it should become a key tool in the management of Windrows, just as the Falcon report currently is.
:: John, thanks very much for jumping into this.   We’ll have a better product as a result.  I invite the rest of you to weigh-in on these matters.
/Bruce<br>
[[User:Robbie McClintock|Robbie McClintock]] ([[User talk:Robbie McClintock|talk]]) 20:20, 11 June 2024 (EDT)