Aligning & Sustaining Assistive Technology Services in Michigan


Colaboratory I: "What Ought to be"

Triggering Question
"What do you think the ideal, sustainable model of assistive technology for Michigan educators and schools “ought to be” to support students in accessing the general education curriculum?”

In response to the triggering question, participants generated 67 Vision Requirements and through a structured, democratic process identified those of relative importance. Participants then worked together to determine which of those would have the biggest systemic impact, generating a graphic pattern (map) displaying the similarities and enhancement relationships among the important vision requirements.

The map indicates that if we were to make significant progress in addressing requirement 41: INCREASE THE STATEWIDE DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY THAT PROVIDES RESOURCES IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR ALL MICHIGAN EDUCATORS, SCHOOLS, AND PARENTS- that would help significantly in addressing the other vision requirements above it.



Artifacts from Colaboratory I

Vision Requirements
Vision Requirements with Clarifications
Clustering of Requirements
Voting results of relative importance

Map


Some of the data emerging from the CoLaboratory focusing on the Requirments are:

  • The Total Number of Vision Requirments generated (N) = 67
  • The Total Number of Vision Requirments receiving one or mote Votes (V) = 26
  • The Total Number of Distinct Connections in the Requirements Map (K) = 93
  • The Number of Requirements in the Map (R) = 15
  • The Divergence from a Total Agreement (D) = 34%
  • The Situational Complexity Index (SCI) = 7.87 (this is the highest SCI of all the applications so far).

The total number of preference votes cast were equal to 80 votes. The total number of votes received by the 15 Requirements selected for Mapping is equal to 70 (87.5%). So most of the Requirements voted by the participants as being of higher relative importance were mapped in Figure 5. The three most important Requirements, namely # 12, 33, and 26, received 25 out of 80 votes (31%). Only Requirement #26, which received 7 votes of relative importance, was positioned as a driver in the Root Cause Map (Figure 5).

The four Requirement identified as drivers in the Root Cause Map, namely # 41, 4, 26, and 40, received only 14 votes out of 80 votes (17%). So even though those four requirements received almost half of the votes received by the most important Requirements, they exert more leverage in the attainment of the vision of AT. The stakeholders should assign more weight in the attainment of these four Requirements in their implementation plan.


Finally, the production of the Root Cause Map required the participants to answer 67 pairwise questions out of a total of 240 questions that they would have to answer if they did not use the CSII software. This means that they answered only 28% of questions, contributing to a saving of over 70% in terms of the time required to construct a Root Cause Map for the Requirements identified as being important.

The Root Cause Map of the vision Requirements is a snapshot of the attainment of the ideal vision for AT, as displayed graphically in the Design and Development Frame that has been adopted for this program.



Dates:
March 15 (1:00 - 4:30)
March 16 (8:30 - 4:30)

Location:

Eagle Eye Banquet Facility - www.hawkhollow.com
Lakepoint Room
15500 Chandler Road
East Lansing, MI 48808
517.641.4570