1. Are the systems reliable? (In many K-12 situations, people are trying to "integrate" technology that only works 80% of the time or less. This would cause "technology reluctance" in anyone!)
2. Are the systems easy to use? (Violations of this cardinal rule are still commonplace. If you can't use it, If the principal can't use it, your staff probably can't either.)
3. Is there a compellng reason to use the technology? (You can't just tell them it's good for them, like eating your spinach. It has to be a part of their job expectation, clearly articulated, with some kind of accountability structure. Can you picture some Bartleby at a call center "preferring not" to use the technology? It has to be like that for your teachers. You have to be able to tell them, "This is how we use the technology, and this is why we use it.")
4. Is there someone in the building who can reasonably be expected to assist on the same day when there are problems? (Help desks aren't worth much if no one is sent until a day or two later.) Support staff are the missing link in most technology budgets. If you don't have them, why waste the money on training?
Please don't misunderstand. Training for teachers in the application of educational technology is necessary, and useful, and good. The point I am making is that simply budgeting a huge dollar figure for "staff development" as a part of the project, is no way of ensuring a positive implementation. Training isn't the only factor in changing teachers' practice. If it's a very reliable system that achieves something new or better, and it's communicated to them that it's important and there's someone to pick up stragglers and help people when they are stuck, your training sessions will be fewer and shorter and you'll get a much better result for the expense.