COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS (CITC)
Predecessor to the University Committee on Information Technology and Communication
(UCIT)
University of Virginia
1994 Proposal for Planning
and Funding of Departmental Information Technology
November 18, 1994
Editor: David Phillips
Because of the decentralization of the planning and budgeting processes
at the University of Virginia, there is no coherent plan for the acquisition
and replacement of information technology hardware and software at the school,
unit, and departmental level. As a result, in some schools and departments
there are substantial gaps between the needs for information technology
- computer classrooms, faculty and staff workstations, and departmental
printers and file-servers - and the resources available to meet these needs.
This disparity is particularly acute in departments that do not have access
to substantial extramural funding.
This proposal outlines a rational approach to meeting information technology
needs across the schools and administrative units at the University of Virginia.
It recognizes that these needs must be prioritized, that we must have "universal
coverage" for information technology, and that these costs must be
treated as an on-going expense so that acquisitions can be planned and depreciated
appropriately.
This proposal focuses on desk-top computer systems and software for instruction
and administrative support, e.g. university-level computer classrooms, school-level
specialized computer laboratories, and workstations for faculty and classified
staff (those of information workers, e.g. secretaries and other academic
and administrative staff). Traditionally, most of these needs would not
be funded from the ITC budget. However, we have tried to suggest mechanisms
through which expertise from ITC can be leveraged to provide better support
for school, unit, and departmental computing.
Funding, Needs Assessment, and Budgeting Concepts:
Once identified, information technology needs (including funds for innovative
projects) should be funded by carefully integrated use of a variety of sources
of technology funding, including classroom technology funds, classroom improvement
funds, the state's equipment trust fund, academic enhancement funds, research
overhead, development campaigns, and budget addenda (there may be others
as well). Once an appropriate technology funding level has been identified,
negotiations between the University administration and schools, units, and
departments will be required to identify funds sources.
The first step in an integrated funding approach will be to determine the
magnitude of need across the University -- not an easy task. Such needs
vary from department to department. Funding for base-level needs should
be distinguished from that for higher level needs in the planning and budgeting
process. Significant early effort should be devoted to establishing the
requirements (in funding and human resources) for the University to bring
all of its departments, schools, and units to a base-level of technological
capability. This process will require the development of a set of broadly
accepted assumptions (or standards) about the costs of technology-related
actions here, as well as the establishment of definitions of the base level
of technological capability that University departments and units should
possess according to size, interest, and discipline.
Departments should be responsible for determining their individual needs.
However, this determination should be made with knowledge and understanding
of University-wide information technology strategies. ITC should provide
easily accessible, up-to-date information regarding these plans, and assist
departments in understanding possible relationships to departmental activities
when requested.
Two changes in the budgeting process are critical parts of this proposal;
however, they do not incur additional costs.
(1) Departments and other administrative units must be provided a means
to budget the on-going costs associated with hardware and software life
cycles. Computers and software should not be treated as a capital cost;
their purchase, support, and replacement must be treated as an cost that
must be budgeted every year, not just in the year of purchase.
(2) All departments and units must have a capacity to "bank" these
funds. The rapid changes and continually decreasing costs for information
technology often make acquisition deadlines irrational and counterproductive.
The current budget process, which requires that funds be expended by a specific
date, often leads to inappropriate and ineffective purchasing decisions.
For such a "banking" plan to succeed, there must be a guarantee
that funds that are allocated to the "bank" could not be diverted
to meet other budgetary shortfalls; otherwise funds will continue to be
spent to make certain they are not lost.
Planning:
Each academic and administrative unit should submit an updated information
technology plan each year in order to participate in the funding program.
The plan should cover acquisition and replacement of technology, annual
maintenance and software updates and on-site first-level technical support.
The latter refers to a person who can keep the printers going, do routine
PC maintenance, answer routine support questions and administer servers.
ITC should provide consultants to assist in the planning process for departments
that desire such support.
Information Technology Needs:
(1) Basic Funding for Instructional Computing:
Currently at the University of Virginia, there is a severe shortage of appropriately
equipped computer classrooms and student laboratories for instruction. Past
university policies have discouraged the reallocation of classrooms to computing
instruction and schools and departments that have provided classrooms from
their own resources do not receive on-going university support. The highest
priority for funding departmental information technology is to develop a
mechanism by which university resources can be used to support computer
classrooms -- classrooms representing an array of configurations appropriate
to the various techniques of presentation and instruction. New specialized
student labs should be funded by a combination of ITC and academic-unit
funds with the aim of making the most efficient use of limited space on
Grounds while also meeting discipline-specific needs as appropriate. The
Academic Computing Support Program could provide the review process for
allocating the seed money to establish new specialized student labs. Equipment
should be renewed using a four-year life cycle. Replacement funding should
be a line item in school level operating budgets and could not be used for
any other purpose. The schools would be expected to provide first-level
support people for their specialized student labs.
As more electronic classrooms are developed, varying levels of technology
support will be necessary. Such classrooms may have special features that
make them very expensive, and these types of facilities must be handled
as University level infrastructure. Appropriate sources of funds for these
facilities include the Classroom Technology Initiative, the Classroom Improvement
Program, and the equipment trust, among others.
(2) Basic support for departmental file-servers and shared/site-licensed
software
Network servers have become an extremely flexible and cost effective method
for supporting departmental computing. To date, with only modest central
support beyond our excellent network infrastructure, there are more than
175 Novell servers at the University. In many cases, departments are slow
to acquire servers not because of the equipment cost, which is modest, but
because of the personnel cost associated with administering the server.
We propose that an equipment/administration cost-sharing plan be developed
that will greatly reduce barriers to networked departmental computing. In
some departments, this would mean that the centrally funded technology plan
would provide for server upgrades every four years while in other departments
technology support would be provided in the form of a part-time ITC system
administrator. A complete server service planned by ITC may also offer an
inexpensive avenue to a local network setup for some departments.
Network servers provide an effective means of distributing software that
can be centrally administered and upgraded. The information technology plan
should include a base allocation of standard software for departmental computing
provided through University-level site agreements and site license software
upgrades should be administered and funded through ITC. Additional software
needs may be provided through the departmental or grant funds.
(3) Maintenance and Local Support
Once the network administrator position, which is technically demanding,
is provided cooperatively with ITC, many remaining needs for first-level
support may be provided by reallocation of departmental personnel. For example,
secretaries may be trained as word-processing and electronic-mail specialists
to address routine questions in these areas. In some cases, several departments
may share such a position. ITC now offers initial training for secretaries
who aspire to work in more technical classifications.
In addition, schools, administrative units, and departments differ greatly
in their access to qualified students who might perform first-level support.
ITC currently trains students to work in ITC User Support; this training
could be extended and the pool of trained students expanded to provide first-level
departmental computing support. ITC might function as a clearinghouse to
list appropriately trained students or combine requests (and funds) from
several departments to provide local support.
(4) Basic Funding for Faculty and Staff Computing
The integrated program of funding should provide line-items in a unit's
budgets for acquisition and/or replacement of information worker's basic
PCs/workstations and necessary file-servers and printers on a four year
basis. Each unit would receive funds to acquire or replace PCs/workstations
for up to one fourth of its faculty and information worker staff each year.
As outlined above, departments/units/schools would be expected to provide
a significant proportion of these funds in an integrated funding model,
much as they do now. However, these funds should not be eligible for reallocation
to meet other needs. Departments could add funds to acquire technology above
the basic desk-top model. It is essential that such funds can be "banked"
at the department/unit level so that rational decisions about maintenance/replacement
and future computing needs/capabilities can be made.
It may not be possible to reach a state of regularized budgeting University-wide
without a significant effort to address departments that are lagging behind
in using technology. This effort could take the form of development grants,
awarded when a department or unit demonstrates that it has taken clear steps
to better understand the technology environment, its planning requirements,
and its costs. The University should explore all opportunities to ensure
that the funding used for these grants is drawn to the maximum extent possible
from new sources as "seed" money, even if continuing funding will
come from the integrated funding strategy and will be amplified using the
banking strategy described above. A life-cycle plan outlining a mechanism
for on-going maintenance of the base levels should be a pre-requisite for
any development grants.
This effort should be seen as distinct from existing funding mechanisms
such as the Academic Computing Support Program (ACSP) and the state's Higher
Education Equipment Trust (HEET) fund. The University's ACSP was designed
to encourage innovative pilots in instructional uses of technology rather
than to support the basic needs of academic units. The Higher Education
Equipment Trust Fund helps support the purchase of scientific, technical,
and other equipment for instruction or research purposes. It cannot be used
for the full array of departmental technology needs, and SCHEV has explicitly
noted that institutions are expected to identify other mechanisms for supporting
such needs.
(5) Funding for innovative use of Information Technology
The proposals outlined above attempt to address the fundamental computing
needs at the University. It is important to separate these needs from the
more innovative and experimental applications of information technology,
which are the appropriate focus of the Academic Computing Support Program.
This program should continue to be administered by the Academic Computing
Council. Such a program allows innovators and early-adopters of information
technology to experiment with new ways to use technology to further the
mission of the University. It can also provide a process for establishing
high-end or prototype student computing classrooms.
