Gerald Ajam

“Technology makes a room future-ready”

A room is ready for the activities it was designed for, not for “the future”.

Status Position

Published September 2026

All counterpositionsDesign

Usually said

“Technology makes a room future-ready”

The shift

From: Add the latest technology

To: Add what an intended activity cannot happen without

More precisely

Technology makes a room more capable only for the activities it was chosen for, and only when the power, connectivity and routines it needs come with it.

In short

Nobody can buy a room for the future, because nobody knows what the future will ask of it. Technology makes a room better at the particular activities it was chosen for, and only if the power, wireless and routines come too. Name the activity before the device.

The argument

From the claim to a better one

  1. The strongest formulation

    Learning is increasingly digital. Rooms without screens, sensors and immersive tools will date quickly, and students should learn with the tools they will use later.

  2. Why it is attractive

    Technology is visible, announceable and fundable. It signals ambition to parents and visitors, and it is easier to buy than a change in practice.

  3. Where it holds

    It holds when an activity genuinely needs the technology, as hybrid collaboration needs a microphone and camera at each group; when the infrastructure comes first, with power where students sit and wireless that works; and when teachers are helped to change their practice, not only to operate the equipment.

    Where it breaks

    It breaks when a feature is chosen because it is fashionable, when several screens compete and the teacher shuttles between them, and when maintenance is not funded, so the room ages faster than one without the kit.

  4. What evidence matters

    This is practice-derived. Our 2019 prototype tests found that extra screens did not change where students looked when the teacher spoke. In the redesigns I have seen since, technology chosen for its trendiness is a common reason a room disappoints. What matters is whether a named activity cannot happen without the kit.

  5. So, more precisely

    Technology makes a room more capable only for the activities it was chosen for, and only when the power, connectivity and routines it needs come with it.

Reading it

The precise version, word by word

Technology makes a room more capable only for the activities it was chosen for1, and only when the power, connectivity and routines2 it needs come with it.

  1. the activities it was chosen for

    Capability is specific to an activity. A camera at every group helps hybrid work and does nothing for a debate.

  2. power, connectivity and routines

    The invisible prerequisites that decide whether the visible kit is used at all.

What it changes in practice

  • Name the activity before the device.
  • Budget for infrastructure and maintenance with the purchase, not after it.
  • Prefer portable, shareable kit you can trial first.

A case, in general terms

In 2019 we tested a classroom fitted with four screens, so every student could see one without turning. The screens helped: students at the back of a science demonstration watched it on a screen instead of standing up. But when the teacher spoke, students with a screen directly in front of them turned round to face her, and said it was a matter of respect. The screens added a way to see. They did not remove the front of the room.

Singapore