Some of the most useful innovations I’ve encountered in higher education began with someone trying to make an ordinary task easier. They saw a problem, understood what needed to change, and found a way to help themselves or a colleague. I’ve always admired that kind of initiative.
Recently, though, an experience made me think more carefully about what happens after someone’s good idea becomes something an institution depends on.
An application had been developed and put into use before Technology Services knew about it. It addressed a legitimate need and appeared to work. But as we learned more, questions emerged about where institutional information was being stored, who could access it, what protections were in place, and who would maintain the application.
The person who created it had solved a problem. The institution still had responsibilities to understand.
When a Good Idea Becomes an Institutional Responsibility
I’ll admit that the situation was frustrating. People were using the application, legitimate concerns needed investigation, and our team had to help resolve something we hadn’t been involved in creating. The technical work was complicated by the human relationships surrounding it.
Our team developed an internally managed solution to address the original need. That was encouraging, but providing a replacement didn’t automatically resolve the concerns associated with the earlier application. We still needed to understand what information it had handled, who might have access to that information, and what follow-through was necessary.
That distinction stayed with me. We often describe technology projects in terms of whether the application works and whether people can use it. Those are important measures, but they don’t tell us everything about what we’ve taken responsibility for.
An application can become an institutional service before anyone has formally decided to operate one. Once information enters it and people begin depending on it, questions about security, continuity, ownership, and support become part of the work.
I want people to solve problems. I also have a responsibility to protect the institution. Reconciling those commitments requires us to understand how a useful idea developed outside our normal processes in the first place.
Why Didn’t They Come to Us?
This is the question I keep returning to.
Someone needed help accomplishing something. Why wasn’t Technology Services part of that conversation? Perhaps we didn’t know about the need. Perhaps someone assumed we wouldn’t have time, or that the request was too small to justify a project. Working around our processes may simply have felt easier than working through them.
I don’t know which explanation applies. But I think we should be willing to investigate those possibilities with the same seriousness we bring to investigating the application.
From our side, a review process may look reasonable and necessary. From someone else’s perspective, it may be difficult to navigate, slow to produce an answer, or disproportionate to the problem they’re trying to solve. Both experiences deserve attention.
If we want people to involve us early, we need to understand what they expect will happen when they do. Will they find someone curious about the problem? Will they receive useful help? Will they leave knowing what they can try next?
The answers help explain whether Technology Services becomes part of an idea’s development or encounters it only after something has gone wrong.
AI Makes the Question More Urgent
Artificial intelligence is expanding the number of people who can turn an idea into a working application. Employees who understand a problem deeply may now have ways to build something they previously lacked the time, skills, or resources to attempt.
That creates possibilities worth taking seriously. It also means an application may be built faster than an institution can evaluate it. A small experiment can become useful to a colleague, spread to a department, and quietly become part of an established workflow.
By the time Technology Services hears about it, people may already depend on it. The original creator may have become responsible for supporting a service without recognizing the extent of that commitment.
We need ways to help people recognize those transitions. What information will the application handle? Who will use it? What happens if it stops working? Who will maintain it if its creator changes roles or leaves?
Those questions are easier to address while an idea is taking shape. Our challenge is to make that early conversation accessible enough that people actually have it.
Making Early Involvement Useful
One possibility would be a lightweight way for employees to bring us an idea before institutional information enters an experiment. Someone could explain the problem they’re trying to solve, show what they have in mind, and get practical help identifying a reasonable next step.
That conversation might reveal an existing tool that meets the need. It might lead to a small experiment using sample data, or show that broader planning is necessary. Whatever the outcome, the employee should leave with a clearer path forward.
I don’t have a finished model for how this should work. I do think we should pay attention to whether our processes make early involvement useful. Asking people to come to us sooner carries an obligation to respond in a way that helps them make progress.
This feels like a worthwhile conversation for KANE. Our institutions may differ in size, staffing, and technology, but many of us are facing the same questions about how to encourage initiative while maintaining responsibility for the services people use.
I’d be interested in hearing how others are approaching it. What have you done that makes employees more willing to bring an unfinished idea to IT? Where have you made experimentation easier while keeping ownership and expectations clear?
The question in the title is one I’d like us to take seriously: what would we need to change so that involving Technology Services becomes the easiest, most useful way for someone with a good idea to move forward?
