University of Arizona’s Technology Refresh Bank Copyright Peter L. Harris, Sally Jackson, Limell' Lawson and Natalie Max, This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non- commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.

“Not Our Problem” Proliferation of departmental labs –external grants & gifts –internal grants (New Learning Environments) Uncontrolled growth of inventory Acquired dependency on technology No permanent funding for most labs

“Not Our Problem”

... nevertheless ours to solve

Inventory-Indexed Budgeting Calculate value of inventory Divide by years of service Build ‘savings’ for refresh into annual budget Unknown to any central source Unknown by departments Untenable for departments (carry- forward too risky)

Introduction of Bank 1998: discontinuation of grants for new labs 2000: last round of refresh grants 2001: introduction of Technology Refresh Bank as response to department requests for assistance –Not quite a grant –Not just a loan

Goals of the Refresh Bank Save the instructional labs –Maintain decentralized purchasing –Cater to disciplinary and departmental preferences Improve departmental management practices –Plan replacement life-cycles instead of responding to decrepitude –Structure departmental payments to allow budgeting without carry-forward funds Improve central support –Distribute scarce resources more rationally –Leverage vendor relationships and other advantageous agreements –Develop a total campus view of inventory

Structure Bank provides: up to 100% equipment replacement structured repayment over set term “forgiveness” of final 25% of principal Department decides: Amount funded Equipment and lab characteristics Payback period

Program Highlights Enables planning vs “begging” Shift toward equipment costs as “operational” rather than “capital” Fully voluntary with enforceable contracts Highly flexible terms Better data on inventory and improved control of inventory growth

Benefits & Challenges Benefits –reduced internal competition for limited funds –cultivation of good management practice throughout the institution –staff can focus on getting the real job done –ability to support $2.4M in inventory with only $200K yearly allocation from bank Challenges –balancing dept vs. central fund responsibilities –decommissioning labs lacking department support

Current Clients Social & Behavioral Sciences –Journalism, Reporting & Editing, Newspaper Production, Broadcast Video –Geography, Spatial Analysis Lab Humanities - 2 loans –Collaboratory –Instructional Development Lab –Electronic Classroom –Spanish & Portuguese Fine Arts –Digital Art Program –Classrooms

Current Clients Sciences –Astronomy –Ecology & Evolutionary Biology –Chemistry Specialty Needs –Disability Resource Center –SALT Center AZ State Museum Central Open Access Labs

Online Program Information

Budget Proposals

The Contract

Accountability

Existing Contracts Journalism $44,000 –Reporting & Editing Lab –Newspaper Production Lab –Broadcast Video Lab –Terms of payback: 20%, 20%, 20%, 15%, final 25% forgiven Geography$65,000 –Regional Development Spatial Analysis Lab –Terms of payback: 18.75%, 18.75%, 18.75%, 18.75%, final 25% forgiven Humanities$81, –Collaboratory –Instructional development lab –Electronic classroom –Terms of payback: 18.75%, 18.75%, 18.75%, 18.75%, final 25% forgiven Total Funds Distributed Year 1: $190,241.75

The Future Request to Legislature for new state funding for equipment refresh Expansion of “refresh bank” concept to include staff equipment and other needs Complete elimination of internal competition for equipment replacement funds

University of Arizona’s Technology Refresh Bank Sally Jackson Limell’ Lawson