Should technology stand alone or be a team player?

I continue to fight to get technology the full recognition I think it deserves in the planning process, daily operations and decision making. But I am questioning my motives, am I trying to get technology the recognition or is it just for me? Are technology staff really fighting to get technology understood and used more, or are they fighting to get their job raised up in the food chain? And if tech staff are fighting to get technology understood and used more, are their motives based on the right things?

In my own strange thought pattern, I am wondering if by forcing the issue of technology and by pushing the importance of it, am I only making it worse? If people don't understand technology and aren't open to it but you consistently try to convince them they are missing opportunities and just don't understand it, would that really change their mind or just make them more defensive?

Would it be more effective to let the planning, operations and decision making happen, then jump in as a team player with technology and pitch in? Each time you are able to add benefit, show value and enhance the team, you make your argument, rather than verbally or otherwise debating the point? So you slowly win them over and they become your advocate.

But what if during that slow process, your org has delivered poor service to its constituents, missed mission opportunities, overworked its staff....

Just talking with a friend who is also tech staff and they shared that "I view my success as having made a difference by remaining invisible." Meaning that the technology, training and processes have worked so well, that people don't realize that the technology is even there, it is transparent. With that said though, if we stay quiet and slowly prove our worth, will they even realize that it was technology that made it happen?

Not sure I accomplished anything in this post but to ask conflicting questions and disagree with myself. What do you think?

Anyway, I had hinted that I would be talking about "is bigger better because of economies of scale\recognition or is smaller better because it forces innovation\thriftiness?" But I just cant get there, I guess that is a sign that as a bigger nonprofit we cant always get the things that are planned because we spend so long maintaining what we already have.