The decisions that past technology teams made and the hardware, software, and network infrastructure they installed affect the decisions that can be made in the future. Especially in schools, the IT system tends to be a kluge; new features and functions were added piecemeal, and each was made to operate with extant systems. In many cases those integrations depended on custom programming and configurations.
School budgets rarely allow for wholesale replacement of technology. The total cost of replacing technology infrastructure includes the cost of obtaining the devices, the cost of engineering the network, and other systems. School IT professionals generally have a good idea of the task they need help to complete. They reach out to network engineers or other consultants when deciding on new systems.
Perhaps the greatest hidden cost of upgrading is the habits of users.
Consider a school that is considering replacing their learning management system which provides virtual classrooms. Instructors may have spent years developing their online classrooms and learning how to add content, grade work, and interact with students online. When the school adopts a new LMS, faculty are faced with the tasks of rebuilding classrooms and learning new systems. Even though classrooms can be exported from one LMS and imported into another, there are formatting and other issues that arise, and faculty are faced with the need to make many changes. They further lose productivity as they learn to navigate and operate the LMS.
Technology leaders rarely leave one position for another that has the same systems. It is reasonable that they will prefer the systems they have recent experience using. The familiarity that comes from recent experience cannot be confused with better performance.
When hiring new IT leaders, CEOs must be very cautious of those who intend to replace systems. The existing systems were installed for a reason, and the familiarity causes the leader to prefer other systems to cause large groups of faculty and staff to prefer the existing systems. Until a leader understands the systems and the many contingencies that affect the total cost of replacement, then they should not be authorized to make significant changes.