"Stuff" is cool. Projectors, interactive systems, cameras, tablets... it's all cool. Great to play with, very engaging at first, and there is a definite feeling of positive movement with the acquisition and unboxing of new equipment.
Very often though, "stuff" is the goal in and of itself. No one has asked how, or if, it will help learning outcomes. It has not been built into the comprehensive technology curriculum, nor has a year-over-year management plan been considered. When "stuff" is acquired, it is usually done rapidly, and the first professional development opportunity for staff is personal experimentation when it is handed out to them, often mid-year in the midst of teaching.
Let's remove the magic of technology from the equation for a moment, and study a hypotehtical architectural situation instead:
A principal is given a grant for a new, additional building.
The first thing they do is go out and buy really nice, beautiful water coolers, office chairs, and potted plants.
Our hypothetical principal probably wouldn't last the week, if they did that.
They wouldn't even last the week if they started by calling an architect.
They'd need to start by sitting at their desk, and thinking through how many students they expect to use the new building, what the greatest needs are for their school, alongside the greatest demands from their school community. They would have to consider if the grant covered all aspects of construction, from planning to safety inspections and occupancy permits, or if some things were left out and would be up to the school to complete, and to pay for.
Then they'd call an architect, discuss their needs, their wants, and work toward a cohesive plan, involving multiple stakeholders and experts.
Many months later, they'd break ground, and many months after that, they'd open the new building with a blessing.
So why, when it comes to technology, do schools want to skip straight to the end, without all the intervening work and effort that ensures a good result?
Some questions to guide the initial phases of any technology project, and to guard against "stuff" blindness:
1) How, quantifiably and demonstrably, will this improve learner outcomes? If you don't know, don't put it in your school, any more than you'd buy textbooks sight unseen.
2) Would this project exist outside these special circumstances (i.e. a donor)? That is, is the project already something you had planned to do (not thought about once at a conference, actually wrote into your tech plan), and is being accelerated by circumstances? If it isn't, don't do it, any more than you'd add a Greek language class just because someone asked you to.
3) Can you support this project long-term, even if circumstances change (donor disappears, volunteer leaves, etc.)? As a corollary, do you understand all the associated costs of the project, which are not part of the initial purchase? Increased bandwidth cost? Increased support cost? Increased PD requirements and/or costs? Increased time commitments? Ongoing administrative concerns like discipline or billing?
4) The most important item: How will you define your success in concrete terms? If your goal is to "improve technology integration," then you will never prove it, and in fact never be able to reach it. What defines success for the project, and what are the milestones going toward it? If your answer isn't a number, concrete or demonstrated outcome, or artifact, then you need to go back and find something that is both meaningful and provable.