CSM Technology Fee Information

Advice and Information for Technology Fee Proposal Writers

For a PDF version of this document, click here

Summary of Advice

The Technology Fee Committee is charged with evaluating and funding proposals submitted by eligible members of the campus community. Funds are derived from the Technology Fee paid by students and matching funds budgeted by the Institution. Funding levels usually do not permit full or even partial funding of all proposals so the committee must establish priorities based on its understanding of institutional needs and goals. Sometimes proposals are deemed to be premature and a recommendation is made to resubmit. Sometimes proposals are rejected because the committee does not support the plans or objectives outlined in the proposal. It is particularly unfortunate when proposals are not funded because they are incomplete, do not convey important information, or are so poorly written or organized that they are not well understood. The following advice is offered to help you write a proposal that can be successful:

1. Proposals should be written for an educated, but lay audience. Remember that the committee consists of both students and faculty and most will not be specialists in your field.
2. Comply with technology fee guidelines and RFP requirements, including cover page and formatting requirements. Provide accurate information on the cover sheet.
3. Justify your request thoroughly. Proposals do not have to be long to be successful. Good proposals will usually
• Describe the issue to be addressed or the problem to be solved
• Propose a method or solution to address the issue. Indicate whether this is part of an ongoing, long-term strategy or is part of a pilot study. (Pilot studies are encouraged to provide information for longer-term, larger requests.)
• Explain why the identified approach and requested resources are the most appropriate solution. Include relevant data as part of the explanation if appropriate.
• Identify the resources selected, how they will be supported and the associated costs.
• Discuss the life cycle of the requested resources and outline replacement plans and strategies along with any replacement history if applicable. It is perfectly acceptable to indicate that life cycle replacements will be requested in future technology fee proposals.
4. If you are requesting funds to acquire technology for elective courses, courses with generally limited enrollment, “optional” or “enrichment” types of activities, or where the cost appears to be high related to the number of students served, then you should extensively justify the request. What is unique about the course or activity? What unusual or exceptional educational benefit does it impart? What justifies the high expense? What additional benefits might it bring and to whom?
5. If you are requesting new resources that are not replacing older resources, you should discuss the impact on the support staff, the priority for support these new resources should receive based on their purpose, what impact this may create for support services in your department, and how this impact will be managed. Support issues may include specification of equipment, design of systems and services, purchasing, installation, configuration, implementation, system administration, maintenance, and user education
6. Do not represent funds or resources as matching funds in the budget that are not specifically defined in the RFP as qualifying to be matching funds. For example, faculty and staff time do not qualify, even though they are recognized as valuable contributions. You can and should identify individual and departmental commitments such as faculty time and previous expenditures within the narrative.
7. Justify thoroughly any requested deviation from technology standards that have been or may be established. If you are unsure about a specific issue, contact AC&N or a technology fee committee member. If you are establishing some new overt or de-facto standard for an application within your department, explain why and provide justification.
8. Don’t wait until the deadline date to write and submit your proposal. Late submissions will not be accepted except in unusual circumstances and only at the discretion of the committee.
9. It is understood that research activities and educational programs are often intimately related. Technology fee funds are provided to support educational technology infrastructure, resources, and related activities. If a resource is primarily or partly used for research activities, say so, and provide an appropriate level of matching funds to cover the research component of the resource’s use.
10. Ask questions. If you have questions about a proposal you are considering or writing, contact any committee member or the committee chair.

Q&A

Who sits on the Technology Fee Committee? How is it selected?

The Technology Fee Committee is comprised of five students (3 undergraduates, 2 graduate students), five faculty (one department head and four faculty), and the chairperson who only votes in the case of a tie. All positions are appointed through the President with ASCSM and GSA recommending undergraduate and graduate student appointments, respectively. The Department Heads recommend a representative, and the Faculty Senate recommends the other four faculty appointments. The committee chairperson is appointed by the President. Select this link for a current list of technology fee committee members.

What process does the Technology Fee Committee use to evaluate proposals?

Proposals are evaluated in a multi-step process. Committee members are expected to read every proposal and have an opportunity to convey questions about any proposal to the proposal writer. All questions that are asked about a specific proposal are sent to the proposal writer with a deadline to respond. Responses are conveyed to committee members after the deadline. Each committee member scores every proposal in which they do not have a vested interest based on a scoring method developed and approved over several years by the committee. Scores are totaled, normalized, and ranked in several ways and the results distributed to the committee at their proposal evaluation meeting. It is important to note that scores are not used as the primary basis to award funding but are used to provide a framework for discussion and to uncover differing perspectives about proposals, especially between student and faculty members of the committee.

Every proposal that is submitted is discussed at the proposal evaluation meeting unless the committee concludes that a proposal does not qualify to receive tech fee funds or if the guidelines or requirements of the RFP for that semester were not followed. Most often, the committee will discuss proposals ranked from first to last, but alternating between student rank and faculty rank. For example, student #1 will be followed by faculty #1, etc. The order in which proposals are discussed has varied, however, based on the circumstances of any given semester. If there is some significant discrepancy between student and faculty rankings, then the alternating method is typically used. Smaller proposals have sometimes been discussed first, and other times lower scoring proposals have been discussed first.

As proposals are discussed, funding recommendations are made that may include full, partial, or no funding. The committee attempts to optimize the use of funds and may often partially fund proposals for this reason. Sometimes funding is not provided because the committee feels that a convincing case for funding has not been made and sometimes it is simply because no funds were available after funding other priorities.

What issues do committee members consider when discussing proposals and awarding funding?

A primary reason to have a committee, of course, is to have different perspectives represented and discussed and to reach a consensus or at least a majority decision about issues it considers. Committee members are obligated to:

• Adhere to the requirements specified in the technology fee guidelines
• Interpret guidelines where appropriate and evaluate proposals within the context of the guidelines
• Evaluate proposals per the requirements set forth in the current semester’s RFP

Individual committee members, of course, may prioritize and weigh issues differently based on funds available, institutional or departmental priorities, enrollment, and a host of other factors. Some issues and questions that individual committee members often consider relevant:

• How many students are impacted or served in a defined period of time (semester, year, summer, specific activity, etc.) by the proposed use of funds?
• What will be the “return on investment?”
• What is the lifecycle of the requested resources?
• What is the justification for this lifecycle if it is unusual?
• What is the replacement plan and cycle?
• What data are being presented to justify the request?
• If this is a fairly large request, has there been a pilot project to test the concept? If not, why?
• Are the courses involved in the request core or distributed core requirements?
• Are the courses involved in the request required courses within an option?
• If not, explain their unique importance to help justify the request
• How does this impact the underlying network or computing infrastructure?
• Will this require new types or levels of administration or support? If so, how will it be provided?
• What other resources are or will be made available to provide fo this project?
• Are matching funds available?
• Are grants or other funding sources being pursued?

Technology Standards. What’s that about?

Institutional standards have been established in several areas to optimize total cost of ownership and ease of use. State purchasing agreements or requirements may also be applicable in some circumstances. The technology fee committee also leans toward encouraging (at least informally) institution-wide or department-wide standards as appropriate. Areas of concern are outlined below. If you propose to deviate from any of these standards, thorough justification must be provided in your proposal.

• Projector standards have been established for use in campus classrooms, labs, and conference rooms and must be used if technology fee funds are involved. These are published on the tech fee and AC&N websites.
• Sympodium model Smartboards are the electronic LCD “whiteboards” of choice for all general-use classrooms and technology fee funded applications. Check with AC&N for details.
• Student Response Systems have been installed in several locations on campus and consistency is encouraged. The system currently in use is InterWrite PRST by GTCO CalComp
• Consistency of PC vendor and models is encouraged throughout departments, especially for computer or other laboratory applications. This optimizes support activities and makes student experiences more consistent.
• Switching systems, where appropriate, for general-use and other classrooms should be consistent, with consistently designed interfaces.
• The committee encourages housing servers in central facilities that are adequately equipped with 24x7 cooling and backup power systems. Server consolidation should be considered if appropriate.
• Server and desktop workstation builds of all types (Windows, Linux, etc.) should be consistent throughout and between departments where practical to provide a consistent environment and to maximize availability of support.
• In general, desktop and laptop computers should be at least three years old to be replaced using technology fee funds. This is a guideline, however, and exceptions may exist.

What are Lifecycles?

Different types of lifecycles can be considered and offered as rationale for replacing resources on a scheduled basis. Three types of life cycles have typically been considered and a fourth has emerged as an issue of concern during the past several years. Proposal writers are encouraged to discuss and propose life-cycles appropriate for the resources and applications for which they are seeking funding.

1. Technological. Technological life cycles for computer equipment tend to be very short, on the order of months, though these have increased somewhat in the past year or two. A computer purchased a few months ago may no longer be available for purchase because it has been superseded by newer technology. Nevertheless, it may be functional for a long time (see next item). Technological life may often be a better argument to replace equipment other than computers or software, though it may be applicable for computers in some situations.
2. Functional. Functional lifecycles for computers may vary significantly based on use or purpose. A computer that is no longer suitable for use in a lab or as a computational engine may still be very useful if redeployed for another purpose such as data collection or as a different type of desktop. Software life and the ability to support both hardware and software applications need to be considered as part of the evaluation.
3. Economic. Resources that may be functional for specific purposes may not be viable economically because of the overall cost of operation or ownership due to maintenance and support costs. Maintaining old software and expertise in rarely used applications or operating systems can be considerably more expensive than acquiring new resources. A few hours of repair time could easily cost the institution more than a modern replacement that is under warranty.
4. Competitive. Whether we may like it or not, prospective students and their parents consider the technological environment and opportunities as an element in determining what institution to attend. Maintaining currency of resources, especially in computer labs, can therefore be important. Prospects touring computer labs that contain computers acquired when they were high school freshman can create an image that is difficult to overcome.

Should I include replacement plans in my proposal?  

Replacement plans are an important component of your technology use strategy, especially for instructional purposes. It is helpful for the committee, Academic Computing & Networking, your department, and other units on campus to understand these plans and consider them so that costs can be modeled, the technology fee can be adjusted, and issues that impact campus infrastructure such as power, space, networking, and HVAC requirements can be evaluated.

---

What other questions would you like to see answered on the Advice & FAQ page? Please send an email to the comments and questions link below to ask your question or suggest information for this page. Thank you.

Return to Technology Fee Home Page